I see my dismissal of Barack Obama is hitting a nerve.
To be honest, I don't find any of the defenses of Obama to be very convincing. The reality is that there are very few experiences that prepare a candidate for the gruelling nightmare that is a U.S. presidential campaign, and Obama has been through absolutely none of them. That's why I'm dismissive of his chances.
It's nice that Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law Review and that he's been both a state Senator and has been in the U.S. Senate. Sure, he's articulate, intelligent, has a great biography, and all that. But none of those things matter compared to the sad reality that George W. Bush, despite his record of personal failue and limited intelligence, was far better positioned to win the White House in 2000 than Obama is today.
I'm bring up Bush, a man who is certainly the worst U.S. president in living memory, because if you don't understand why the man is sitting in the White House you don't know how American politics works. Even if you want to argue that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen, Bush still managed to get enough votes to make them stealable.
What did Bush have going for him? Well, here's a big one: he was a Governor.
That actually is important. In the U.S., Presidential elections are won by a) Governors and b) former Vice Presidents. Senators rarely win (Kennedy was the last and the record before his time is similarly dismal for ex-senators). You know why? Because senators don't have any real campaigning experience.
I'm not joking. The turnover rate in the U.S. Senate is lower than that of the British House of Lords. A senator will probably run in no more than one genuinely competitive race over the course of his or her career--the first one. Obama hasn't even done that--in most of his campaigns, he's either unopposed or his opposition has messily self-destructed. He's never faced an opposing campaign, or reporters, who will mine his speeches and record looking to trip him up. He's never had to respond to issues on the fly. He's never had to fight off serious attacks or recover from a mistake--and he has never had to keep doing that, while keeping up a punishing travel schedule, day after day for a period of two years. Governorships are a lot more competitive as a rule, so they have been through it, and sitting VPs have actual experience on a presidential campaign. That's a big reason why they win, and Senators don't.
Bush's team had the experience of having toppled a once-popular state Governor, with Bush as the candidate, and the backing of much of the establishment Republicans. They knew how to fight dirty. Obama's appeal is based all around being "Mr. Clean" and he's never had to fight off a serious swift-boating attack.
A senatorial campaign--especially Obama's, where the first Republican candidate went down over a sex scandal and they had to fly in an out-of-state crazy to replace him--just doesn't prepare you for that.
That's not the only reason I don't see Obama sitting in the White House anytime soon. But it's a big one. A really big one. Who knows, maybe he'll be one of the very rare "star candidates" who proves able to be effective at it--but I can't remember many of those.
So what you are saying is that he shouldn't run for President because he hasn't yet run for President? I say somtimes politicians have to fit the times and that produces a different kind of politics. Obama represents much of how a great many Americans want to see themselves and how they want to project themselves, particularly considering the last 6 years. This is really the only thing that can account for a Junior Senator going into New Hampshire over a year away from a nomination campaign and drawing crowds of over 2000 (paying I might add) people.
And you are right...Senators don't win, except when they do (Kennedy for example). I think this "not campaign tested" argument is really over-blown. Obama is going to be subjected to extremely intense scrutiny over the coming months and years as he runs for the nomination (if he runs). If he folds he won't win. If he does hold up it will put him in good standing for the Presidential election.
Also, I think Obama as a VP candidate is a non-starter. Which person at the top of the ticket will want Obama out-shining him/her throughout the campaign?
I'll agree the argument is overblown when heavily-promoted political up-and-comers stop losing major elections to the old political hands nine times out of ten.
And no, I'm not arguing that Obama can't run for President because he's never run for President. I'm arguing that he's never faced a serious challenger in his political career.
I don't think Brennan said he *shouldn't run* for President. Just that he most likely won't win. And he didn't say "because he hasn't yet run for President", he said "because he doesn't have any serious campaigning experience".
Whether he's right, I don't know, but you managed to insert two straw people into one initial sentence, which certainly makes me feel less like paying attention to your rejoinder.
There is no scenario where Obama faces a serious test (he will win easily if he continues as Illinois Senator considering the state of the Republican party there) so he will have to run if he is ever to be tested. I just think we shouldn't say that because he hasn't run a tough race that he won't be effective during a tough race. Maybe Arnold S in California provides something like an example.
I also don't think he can be dismissed as just a "star" candidate. That was the point of my previous post.
Also I think you should take into consideration how useful a "Mr. Clean" image will be if he is running against people like McCain or Gugliani (sp?) who have closets full of skeletons.
But if all you are saying is that Obama hasn't faced a tough challenge than ok. Though I think you may be under-estimating how dirty those backroom campaigns for Editor of the Harvard Law Review are.
Arnie is not the best example--he had years of experience dealing with the tabloids to prepare him. The biggest exception I can think of is actually Trudeau.
The "swiftboating" of John Kerry was the most brutal political tacttic I've ever witnessed. going in the democrates seemed secure that their decorated war veteran candidate would be coated with teflon and kevlar, and impervious to attack on his military record. The Swiftboat people proved you can lie through your teeth on national television and radio about a presidential candidate in an election, destroy that candidate, and face no serious repercussions. It does not matter who the democrates put up, expect "swift boat" raiders to figure prominently in the campaign, probably from both sides. The election will be one by the one who can take the most mud, and still stand up.
Yo Yeti:
" 'swiftboating' of John Kerry was the most brutal political tacttic I've ever witnessed"
At the time I was otherwise occupied - but did not the Bush organization (with appropriate denyability for George) practice this technique initially on John McCain?