Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Open thread
Posted in:
Dan Conley has a post today at Political Wire that strikes me as just about right, at least as far as Clinton is concerned.
Whether the Obama boomlet began as a clever way to hype his book, out of sheer boredom or after careful planning, there’s no question that it’s now taken on a life of it’s own. It’s become clear that the Obama campaign is the one with all the heat on the Democratic side and the more likely it looks that Hillary Clinton will decide to run, the stronger the pressure will build for Obama to get into the race as well. Why? Because he’s the only candidate with the power to capture the queen.
For all of Sen. Clinton’s poll and money advantages, the fact remains that Obama is the candidate party insiders are excited about. It’s the campaign everyone wants a part of. Nobody is saying the same for Clinton — her campaign is looking like the most corporate, oldest and blandest since Mondale in ‘84. Great campaign team? Sure … for the 1992 Presidential race. There are plenty of generals, but who wants to be a footsoldier for HRC? And speaking of wars, the longer the U.S. remains in Iraq, the better for Obama, who was aganst it from the start and has a plan to get us out.
Can another candidate break through in this environment? I think it’s unlikely. Bayh couldn’t even outshine Edwards, never mind Obama. Clark’s best shot was having the Clinton’s on his side in ‘04. Gore is too happy hanging out with Leo and Will Ferrell to get in now. Kerry is the walking dead. Edwards seems even more lightweight today than he did four years ago. Within six months, it will become clear that Clinton vs. Obama is the only game in town … and who wants to be on the side of the safe, corporate, vaguely pro war candidate in this party?
The video posted below has been getting a lot of attention on political blogs lately. Republican Ed Rogers takes the schoolyard taunt angle (most favored by the DC crowd) by ridiculing Obama’s middle name “Hussein.” “Put me down as somebody who counts him out,” Rogers says.
Maureen Dowd’s lede was pretty funny this weekend:
If you call Barack Obama’s office to check the spelling of his middle name, the reply comes back: “Like the dictator.â€
However, there is a more important Arabic name associated with Obama that the national media has mostly left untouched to date: Rezko.
And finally, Tom Bevan attempted a bit of myth-busting recently that ironically relied on a false myth.
Consider just how meteoric Obama’s rise has been. In 2000, he lost badly to Bobby Rush in the Democratic primary in Illinois 1st Congressional District. Four years later, with only about a month left in the 2004 Democratic Senate primary, Obama was running tied with Dan Hynes for second place, ten points behind gazillionaire Blair Hull - until the frontrunner’s campaign imploded in mid-to-late February amid revelations his wife had filed a restraining order against him for abuse (I think he admitted kicking her in the shin during a spat, if I recall).
Barring that last minute turn of events, Obama would still be an Illinois State Senator and two-time loser for higher office that no one in the country had ever heard of.
That would be true if the Hull disclosure and its timing were purely accidental and completely unexpected. As I’ve said before, the Hull thing was a planned hit, timed to coincide with a televised debate and Obama’s first TV ads.
Hull was a damaged candidate. Everybody on the inside knew this thing was coming out eventually, even if it hadn’t been neatly packaged for media consumption. To claim that Obama would still be an unknown if Hull’s past had remained undisclosed is like saying Topinka would have won last month if nobody had voted in Chicago.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 2:33 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Open thread
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I guess I’m in the minority who is far more enthused about a Hillary candidacy than an Obama candidacy.
But Obama would be a good candidate, of course, and one point in his favor I was thinking about today: he’s good cover for the whole diversity of the Democratic party. Precisely because he hasn’t really done anything much at the national level, every Dem from the bluest to the reddest district could line up with him and paint him a bit more liberal or a bit more conservative in their home districts. There’s a lot of marginal territory to defend in 08. No question having Obama at the top of the ticket makes it easier to defend, say, Melissa Bean’s seat than having Hillary at the top of the ticket.
So pick a bright, appealing candidate with little or no public record to criticize, and hitch a bunch of other lower-candidate races to his star. It’s nineteenth-century Democratic politics at its finest.
My only concern is that it might wind up protecting the Democratic majority in Congress, but still losing the White House. Everyone catching Obama-mania out there, remember: the rules all change once he becomes a candidate. The press will no longer be his friend. Don’t expect the Obama love-in to last.
Comment by ZC Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 2:47 pm
I think Bevan has a point. It may have been a planned hit, and Hull may have been damaged goods. But, Obama was fortunate in his opponents.
Comment by Greg Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 2:52 pm
Conley’s phraseology may say more than he intended it to. Typically, when someone says that something has “taken on a life of it’s own,†there is the implication that it no longer serves it’s creator (in this case, assumedly, Obama) in a purely beneficial manner.
Many have observed that Obama’s “boomlet†is reminiscent of Bobby Kennedy’s ’68 candidacy. Obama, like RFK, has become a screen onto which every faction of the Democratic Party is now projecting its hopes and dreams. There is no way that he can satisfy all of them when his inspiring words must become definable policy positions (or, in the case of a win, policy initiatives and actions).
Comment by grand old partisan Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 3:15 pm
JACK! Ryan, for all his faults, would have at least been able to raise enough cash and dump in a good deal of his own fortune to make the 2004 U.S. Senate Race a good one. The GOP, as always, screwed that one up and Obama came away unscaithed and is now in the limelight. However, John McCain is no Blair Hull or Alan Keyes. Obama will go up against a maverick war hero who is seasoned, intelligent and can raise tons of cash. We’ll see how Obamaramabananananafofana fares on a national stage against someone like a Hilary Clinton or a John McCain.
Comment by Team Sleep Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 3:19 pm
The Obama got lucky meme has always been inaccurate even if Hull didn’t have the divorce stuff. It was simple math, the candidate that could get to 35% in that field was going to win and Barack had the easiest road to get there.
In the 2002 primary, Roland Burris took 85% of the African American vote and he took 30% of the vote statewide. So assuming that Barack started with a base of 30% of the statewide vote he just had to pick up another 5% to get a winning coalition, and a charismatic, articulate Harvard Law grad and Constitutional law professor was going to pick up that 5% so long as he could raise the money to get on Chicago tv for 3 or 4 weeks. Barack got on tv, got the additional votes he needed and the rest is history.
Hull’s assist to Obama wasn’t as much the divorce implosion (although that definitely helped) but what may have been a bigger difference maker was that because Hull put so much of his own money into the race the contribution limits for all the other candidates went up to $12,000 from individuals (instead of the $2,000 it otherwise would have been) and that extra fundraising certainly helped Obama raise the money he needed for a few weeks of television.
So when people tell you he was the underdog in the race or he got lucky, don’t believe them, it was always his race to lose. But if you want to be impressed by something, the fact that he took over 50% in that race, that’s saying something, and that you can probably attribute to the Hull collapse.
Comment by Snark Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 3:35 pm
I’m sticking with my Gore Obama forecast as the Dems ticket.
Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 3:35 pm
Have to wonder of Obama is too good to be true. Has he really went through the purging process many pols go through? In the Senate race I would have to say no, everybody disliked Keyes except for a small section of Illinois in the 108th. The hounds will be out in 2008 looking in every deep dark corner, I just wonder what they will find.
Comment by Gus Bode Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 3:40 pm
It ain’t happening. Obama will not survive the gauntlet of the campaign trail. It is brutal, it is tiring, it is full of surprises and landmines….. like Rezko. Don’t be fascinated with someone who hasn’t done anything. The limelight can be inviting and intoxicating, but it can become blinding and the heat too great to bare. Way too early…..the big guns haven’t started firing. And as ZC mentioned, the press won’t be kind when the real campaign starts. The love fest will end and the gloves will come off. It ain’t happening. But he’ll still have his book tour.
Comment by Justice Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 3:54 pm
He still looks a lot more like the “People Magazine candidate” than a second Bobby Kennedy.
Fear the Clintons, Barack! They have destroyed and defeated opponents that were tougher and better than you.
Comment by Bubs Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 4:30 pm
Have the Democrats suddenly come upon some new strategy that we’re unaware of?
Last time around, it was a freshman senator running in the VP slot. This time, there’s this ‘momentum’ behind a freshman senator for the lead.
While I understand the desire to inject new blood into things, is there some reason they’re throwing in people with short resumes?
Comment by Hal Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 5:01 pm
I’m tired of everybody saying Obama was lucky in ‘04. I watched the guy up close. He worked his tail off, he was extraordinarily disciplined in raising prodigious amounts of money the old fashioned way (through hours of call time), he worked the vineyards from one end of the state to the other when no one knew who he was, and he ran on a series of legislative accomplishments that would be the envy of other elected officials.
He was also an inspiring figure, who left people impressed and wanting to get involved.
That’s not luck. That’s skill, genuineness, integrity, and hard work.
Comment by Northwest Side Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 5:02 pm
Oh, and I remember another presidential candidate with only a couple of years of federal legislative experience, known for his great speeches and ability to unite disparate political factions. But he was widely considered to be much too inexperienced to lead the nation in time of war. Some guy named Lincoln.
Comment by Northwest Side Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 5:07 pm
I think Senator Obama will be the Democratic Presidential Candidate and he will be our next President.
The Decatur Herald & Review ran a good story Sunday, Obama fans hope to draft senator, on Obama’s building momentum.
Comment by (618) Democrat Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 5:12 pm
Here is a link to the Herald and Review Story.Obama fans hope to draft the senator
Comment by (618) Democrat Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 5:24 pm
Now it’s Obama is the equivalent of Lincoln?!?!?
Holy cow.
Comment by Bubs Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 6:07 pm
The Herald-Review article is by
RON INGRAM and MIKEF RAZIE
“Obama fans hope to draft the senator”
Link is below
http://www.herald-review.com/articles/
2006/12/04/columnists/ingram_frazier/1019565.txt
Comment by tcbagwell Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 6:44 pm
Someone show me one thing he has accomplished at the national level? This does not include getting elected in an election where anybody with a D behind their name would have been elected.
Comment by DRB Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 6:47 pm
Early in the ‘04 Senate race, it was considered Hynes’ race to lose, not Obama’s. The pundits considered him an underdog, not the inevitable.
Comment by fightforjustice Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 6:52 pm
Has anyone noticed the difference between Barack Obama and most (or all) of the other possible presidential candidates? And no, his ethnicity is not the answer. The PEOPLE want Barack to run! Hillary probably comes close to also enjoying that phenomenon, but as far as the others it’s: “Take it from me, my fellow Americans, I think I’m the best there is”. What a wonderful change it would be to support a people-driven, not another
ego-driven, president.
Comment by Crow Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 7:10 pm
I prefer him to Hillary, but whichever one makes it through the media/campaign mess, they will most likely face off against Giuliani.
Lotsa luck to ‘em trying to beat a moderate with that much name recognition and who had the principles to give back a check to the Saudis after negative comments that were made just after the 9/11 tragedy.
That’s what I want, someone who will say “No, I won’t take your money, then” instead of this “pay-to-play on steroids” nonsense and other $$$ scandals.
That said, it really isn’t the money that’s corrupt; it’s the people. The money just gives them something to create havoc WITH, no more and no less.
People.
We need better people with better memes out there solving problems.
Comment by Angie Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 8:25 pm
B. Barr is wise when he says: “I’m sticking with my Gore Obama forecast as the Dems ticket.”
It’s going to happen.
Speaking of McCain,and remembering the push poll of two elections ago, do you think there will be a push poll asking voters whether they would be less likely to support Obama if they knew he had fathered a black child?
Comment by Mr. Mann Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 10:02 pm
1. What has Obama done?
2. He has no military experience. Limited international experience until recently.
3. He does not have a compelling story like McCain, Hagel or others like the Dems from Cleland GA or the new guy Webb VA.
4. It is not because he is African American, but as the first President of Muslim heritage, but it may not come up as he is veryclose to the Jewish community and Israeli lobby being a favorite of the Jewish community since day 1 since he was a Senator.
5. Not a rags to riches story, not a Horatio Algiers, albeit very accomplished, but Jack Ryan was just as if not more and most of the Senators are Ivy League so maybe in Illinois Senate a Harvard degree or U of C professorship means a lot but not in the Senate.
6. Very articulate, beautiful words but really no vision nor specifics. He articulates well the words of a vision in broad strokes but no real details, no real vision.
7. Obama is fairly liberal. No real cross over except for the religious rhetoric. No real innovative issues. The religious stuff is good but not enough to not be considered a liberal.
Comment by Danny Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 10:49 pm
Al Gore will be the Democratic nominee and the next President. I think that the right wingers, the talking heads in D.C., were and are behind the big stir to put Obama’s name out there in the public spectrun. Their intent was to damage/tarnish his image because he is quite popular. At first Obama brushed the idea off, but now I think he has bought into it. I like Obama but Gore is “da-man” to beat. I do not know any Democrat that does not like Gore. Read the writing on the wall, not what talking heads spit at you.
Comment by SilverBackDemocrat Monday, Dec 4, 06 @ 11:21 pm
Re: “I do not know any Democrat that does not like Gore.”
I can’t stop laughing.
Al Gore is a carbon-based robot. Many Dems would probably agree.
Gore versus Giuliani? That’s gonna be really fun to watch!
Comment by Angie Tuesday, Dec 5, 06 @ 7:17 am
Just a note: Tom Bevan has it wrong. I don’t ever remember Blair Hull 10 points ahead of Hynes in the 2004 Senate primary. If I remember the race correctly Hynes was polling the highest all the way up until the last couple of weeks. So give Obama some credit. Hull is not the reason Obama is a US Senator. It took 6 months of TV ads for Hull to get into the low double digits. Hull spent $30 million but at no point was he ever polling the highest of the plethora of candidates.
Plus Obama won by something like 25% over the second place candidate (Hynes). Some of Hull’s votes might have went to Obama just like some of his votes might have went to any one of the other 5 candidates in that primary race.
Tom Bevan needs to give more credit to Obama!
Comment by Central Illinois Tuesday, Dec 5, 06 @ 7:46 am
Anyone who thinks Rudy will be the GOP nominee should really check out this webpage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8
Imagine that as a 30-second ad in the South Carolina primary.
I just can’t see the conservative base letting Rudy in. Socially, he’s Judy Baar Topinka on PCP.
Comment by ZC Tuesday, Dec 5, 06 @ 8:43 am
Obama was the Democratic sponsor and Coburn the GOP sponsor of the law that makes all government contracts and grants searchable and transparent.
The thing that impressed me about Obama is that he managed to look dignified in the debacle of an election that was 2004. Granted Keyes was easy to beat, but I would think it is more difficult to deal with a crazy opponent than a sane one. Obama had to look comfortable with Keyes even when Keyes was not playing the game according to Hoyle, was casting personal attacks on him etc.
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Dec 5, 06 @ 9:04 am
There is no “new” in Obama except an image. Scrap away all that pretty and you have Walter Mondale with charisma. Big deal.
He should run unofficially. He needs to get out there and get punched and roughed up. He can make 2007 and 2008 a personal quest for office, and yet be re-elected in 2010. He has nothing to lose but other people’s money. He should go for it.
But he needs to be more than pretty. After two years in office, he has yet to do anything to really show us that he is indeed new and different. I voted for him and had great hope, but after TWO memoirs about himself, I’m getting tired of all the parading, preening and hot air.
Enough already - get to work!
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Dec 5, 06 @ 9:36 am
Obama’s yet to fill the shoes of the man he replaced in the Senate.
Get a copy of Lt Gen Romeo Dallare’s book Shake Hands with the Devil. (Forward by Obama staffer Samantha Powers).
Dallaire lead the UN force in Rwanda and is the guy portrayed by Nick Nolte in the film Hotel Rwanda.
Go to the footnote on page 372. You’ll find this tribute to Illinois’s Senator Paul Simon.
Some US politicians wholeheartedly supported UNAMIR. On May 5, senators Paul Simon and Jim Jeffords contacted me in Kigali and got first-hand the information they needed to draft a letter to the White House seeking a change in policy from the administration in regards to Rwanda and UNAMIR. In the months to come these gentlemen became my greatest allies in the US government until finally the administration was so embarrassed by the media and by the senator’s lobbying that it finally mounted a humanitarian mission. That mission did save the lives of millions–includint most of the perpetrator of the genocide–but it did not assist the victims nor did it arrive in time to prevent or stop the genocide. I owe a great debt of gratitude to Simon and Jeffords for a t least trying to get Rwanda on the radar screen of the White House.
Comment by Bill Baar Tuesday, Dec 5, 06 @ 12:30 pm
I just can’t see the conservative base letting Rudy in. Socially, he’s Judy Baar Topinka on PCP.
Obama’s visit to the mega Church may show a little mellowing of the Christian Right. They may not leap to a Democrat, but Giuliani might look good.
Comment by Bill Baar Tuesday, Dec 5, 06 @ 12:53 pm
Re: “I just can’t see the conservative base letting Rudy in. Socially, he’s Judy Baar Topinka on PCP.”
Socially, the government needs to get the heck out of everyone’s personal business (yes, that means not stalking new parents around with creepily well-timed greeting cards, Rod Blagojevich).
People who think it is the job of the government to nose into every nook and cranny of the electorate’s business are not conservatives; those are busybodies who need to spend more time in church preaching and less time preaching what Washington ought to be telling people to do).
If a moderate can come up with a better plan on how to approach some of the big issues while still providing a clear choice for voters, then that’s just the way it ought to be.
Can you just see Al Gore trying to use government to run your life? Example: Hi, I’m Al Gore. I care about you, and so I have created this 50,000 page plan on how that should be done…
Good God. Good grief!
Comment by Angie Tuesday, Dec 5, 06 @ 5:13 pm
It’s Alger. Horatio Alger.
Algiers is the capital of Algeria.
And Clinton, Reagan, FDR, and Lincoln were among the presidents who manages some measure of success without military experience, among the numerous fallacies in your post.
Comment by JJSpringfield Tuesday, Dec 5, 06 @ 8:13 pm