Obama in '08?

Just when the draft Gore movement crescendoes, yet another liberal hero begins to be mentioned as a potential candidate in 2008. This time it's Barack Obama. Last weekend the Post had a front-page article outlining the possibility that Illinois' 1st-term superstar Senator might run for the Presidency - and way ahead of schedule, I might add.

Now I for one don't think he's going to run. He's a very shrewd politician and knows how difficult it would be for him to squeeze past Hillary. My bet is that he's hoping that Hillary doesn't get the nomination and that he gets picked for a running mate. Either way, 2012 or 2016 is probably better for him. In the meantime it doesn't hurt to keep his profile high. The more the press treats Barack as a nominee-in-waiting, the more likely it is he'll become one.

Why is it that Barack is so attractive to so many Democrats, me among them? The Post article identifies the fact that he is a "fresh face." Yglesias notes that Barack - unlike most American politicians - is an effective orator. This asset made John Edwards a major player in 2004, and is what has made Obama what he is. Yglesias wonders why it is that there are so few talented speakers in contemporary politics. I would suggest that it is because that being a good speaker doesn't have much to do with getting elected these days. The chief criteria are fundraising ability and the ability to speak in sound bytes. The first has nothing to do with good rhetoric, and the latter positively inhibits it.

Barack is certainly a very talented orator, as evidenced not only by his 2004 convention speech by more recent statements. Although I might quibble with his failure to enunciate an overarching positive theme (he reverts to the same boring laundry list), he is devastatingly effective in his critique of conservative philosophy.

But despite his many gifts, I don't think that it is just Barack's oratory that has made him an attractive presidential candidate now. Or rather, it's not his oratory in isolation. The fact is that many Democrats are deeply dissatisfied with the prospect of Hillary Clinton as a nominee. Many are frustrated with her nods to the right, and many others just don't think she can win. They are casting around for an alternative, and have yet to settle on one of the other potential candidates. Hillary's formidably strong position makes it very unlikely that she will be denied the nomination, so those who oppose her candidacy need a real superstar to defeat her. Hence the flirtation with Gore (who doesn't seem to want to run), and Obama (who thinks it is too early).

My opinion? I think that anyone who wants to be President should run whenever they think they can. If Gore wants it, he should run now. If Obama wants it, he should run now - I don't think his lack of experience is really much of a liability (I think Edwards would have been the nominee in 2004 if not for 9/11). History is littered with potential presidential candidates who waited when they should have run, and who latered rued their own timidity. The worst that can happen is that they lose the general election (losing the nomination never seems to hurt anybody but overwhelming frontrunners) - which means that the only thing that happens is that they're not President. Which is exactly the same situation if they don't run at all.