Freedom from Blog

Don't call it a comeback . . . .

Monday, October 23, 2006

Don't Believe the Hype

So, we were watching that Russert show yesterday, when "Mr. Wonderful" Barack Obama made the "announcement" that he was "thinking about" running for president in 2008. If you hadn't already concluded that he was thinking of running in two years, you haven't been paying attention, people. But this raises two questions: (1) Why would he be thinking of running in 2008? And (2), why would people be excited that he's thinking of running in 2008?

First question first. My sense is that Obama's thinking is motivated by the idea that someone in the Democratic primaries in 2008 will emerge as the anti-Hillary, or the non-Hillary, anyway. And right now, it's very hard to see who that person is. Obama says to himself, "If I run, I can run as the alternative to Hillary. That's the road to the nomination." (The road to the nomination, that is . . . and then this guy with a lack of experience problem goes up against media darling St. McCain?)

Now, a subsidiary question: If Obama competes with Hillary, who's the Lefty? If you're like me, out here waiting for a genuine liberal . . . I guess Al Gore is our hope. But he's not running, yet.

Second question, which is basically, why would voters be attracted to Obama as the anti-Hillary? To put it another way, why is Obama regarded as "Mr. Wonderful"?

I just don't get it. If you watched (and listened to) that Russert interview, Obama sounded just like generic Democratic senator. If you just read a transcript, without names or references to Obama's new book, I defy you to identify Obama as distinct from Kerry, Biden, or even Lieberman based on the content of his answers. More importantly, I follow politics pretty closely, and I can't tell you what Obama's big issue is. I can't name an issue on which he's led, in his less-than-two-year Senate career. I have no idea what he stands for, except for platitudes. And if you actually listen to the guy, that's what he gives you. Platitudes. Like "hope," "the American dream," "personal responsibility." But without policy, these are just empty words.

My best guess is that Obama flatters the establishment, as a certain spouse of mine has put it. He's a non-angry black guy, and he has bought in to all the b.s. that oldsters like Joe Klein have been peddling for years.

But some of us are still waiting for someone who will be able to successfully challenge the utterly discredited establishment and shake things up. And Obama has absolutely nothing to offer us, except more of the same.

If you aren't angry at this point, then you're stupid. Even if you were editor of the Harvard Law Review.

8 Comments:

At 10:49 AM, Blogger tenaciousmcd said...

Great post. I was thinking about putting a post up last night on this very subject, but you beat me to it and said it better.

Far as I can tell, Obama-mania boils down to one great speech at the Dem convention. And I've been told by a couple of students that his book is inspiring. He's obviously got lots of political talent. But damned if I can figure out what he's actually fighting for.

Final straw for me: David Brooks wrote his first column in years saying positive things about a Democrat, and it was an Obama homage. As I read it, Brooks mostly wanted a Dem candidate who would bend over backward not to blame the GOP for the clusterfuck they've created over the last several years. Brooks wants desperately not to have to admit failure, and he thinks Obama is the guy who will flatter that conceit. I also suspect that he relishes the possibility of Dems in red states having to drive around with "Obama '08" stickers that may get them shot at.

So at the moment I'm stuck hoping for Gore.

 
At 10:54 AM, Blogger tenaciousmcd said...

Forgot to mention: GREAT review in Harper's by Kevin Baker of the new books by that wanker Klein and the somewhat more sympathetic Beinart.

 
At 11:13 AM, Blogger Frances said...

That Kevin Baker review was wonderful: he's one of the best commentators out there on our moribund politcs. Did you also read his "Stabbed in the Back" piece? Brilliant!

 
At 11:22 AM, Blogger Stephanie said...

I kind of like Barack Obama. What's wrong with having an inspirational head of state?

 
At 4:04 AM, Blogger fronesis said...

Thanks the gods for this last comment from dk!!! I turn to FfB because you all are so much wiser about political machinations, and Obama really was, in my heart, the onoly hope. But I'm with dk here (and I kow that he too knows FAR more about politics than I): why not run now?! The republicans have their playback for democratic candidates and it will always work better on those who have been in the senate and actually voted on things. And it WAS a good speech at the democratic convention, and I can't recall another that was as good in quite some time.

 
At 1:38 PM, Blogger tenaciousmcd said...

I won't dispute Obama's overall appeal. And I agree that HIS window will never be as open as it is now, given the tendency of Senate service to diminish one's chances. I think it is in HIS interests to run.

However, a couple of cautions from the standpoint of OUR interests. First, I worry that being in the Senate has ALREADY lessened Obama's voice. Whenever I hear him on the talking head shows these days, he always sounds pretty mealymouthed. I see a speedy Kerryification going on here. The presidential race, combined with his wooing of the Klein and Brooks set, may worsen that tendency.

Second, Obama '08 means largely writing off the south. Obama might be able to win in Florida, Lousiana, or Virginia, but even those are a stretch. A Dem can win without the south, but it is a tough road, especially if the GOP puts up a viable candidate, like McCain. Of course, there may be no one who can beat St. John, meaning it would be better to go for a charismatic party rebuilder (Obama?) than a safe chance-at-winning guy (Bayh, etc.).

 
At 9:33 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Well, Barak can’t be all that bad since the religious right has officially dubbed him the Antichrist (hat tip to the Gadflyer for this story). You would think that after Christ never returned within one generation after his death (as some writers of the NT thought he would), after Russia wasn’t the red horseman of Revelations (or at least we never hear about this one anymore), after Y2K wasn’t the beginning of the tribulation, and after the attack on Lebanon wasn’t the start of the apocalypse... that eventually these holy rollers would get a clue for Christ’s sake. Where is Seven Star Hand when we need him/her?

 
At 6:56 PM, Blogger tenaciousmcd said...

Dude, everybody knows that CLINTON was the antichrist. Bush is just the ensuing pestilence.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home