Obama: Talk about peaking too early!

Thinking about the size of the mess that GW Bush is leaving for his successors to clean up, I can't help but think "Why would anyone want this job?"

So I think I'm going to be swayed far more by executive experience than by legislative or oratorical talent.  

I don't know if this is my "baseline", but I am very concerned about how the presidential candidate will affect the ability of the Democrats to solidify their congressional gains (and the downticket elections too).  Given that Obama has a distressing habit of inventing bogus Democratic strawmen and then attacking them (e.g., here), I'm not convinced he would be the best standard bearer for the party or the best president.  Clinton is definitely out by that criterion (she didn't even bother to help nail down upstate NY).

Looking at that chart, I see low chatter up until the point he said he would "maybe" get into the presidentiaal race.  Then I see a gigantic bump and a pattern of interest that mirrors and often overwhelms that of Edwards or Gore or any of the other netroots favorites.  

Did it even occur to you that most of that chart is tracking time when no one seriously considered Obama a potential '08 contender?  If you just take the last few months, you've got a substantial amount of buzz on the netroots level.  

Although, I might add that I also like the convenient conflation between netroots/grassroots, as they are definately not a single entity.

I'm a proud self-described member of the netroots movement.

And I like Barack Obama. But, I'm not naive. And I'm not uninformed about his record, or his maneuvers since becoming Senator.

I don't believe Obama is perfect or a savior.

But, I don't need Matt Stoller, Chris Bowers or David Sirota to tell me that.

I simply think he is the best candidate who's likely to run. And I agree with Kos that "if he runs, he wins."

So, I just don't understand the purpose of this effort that reinforces the "empty suit" charge.

And I can't help but feel that all this smacks of a kind of a "top-down" A-list blogger shot across Obama's bow.

Please, have some faith in your netroots brethren.  And please stop implying that support for Obama equals naivete.

I know my baseline. And I know not to get suckered by a cult of personality.

I suspect I'm not alone.

People-powered politics means that you have to be willing to trust the people.

Honestly he's not my favorite, but if it comes down to a choice between him and Hillary, I'll gladly take him any day. I really wish Warner had run... shame.

You're right about this being a "star-fucker" campaign. As of now, Obama has virtually no actual substantive record as a Senator. In fact, so far it is all rather troubling (see http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/si rota). But we should not underestimate the "cult of personality" that is enveloping this guy. Reagan, Clinton and Bush II just to point out the latest examples of presidential aspirations driven by starry-eyed followers.

We're doomed.

11th Amendmant??  Don't talk bad about another Democrat (kind of)???  

I'm not entirely sure why there is this huge lecture on what Obama will do once he runs, but I believe he has the best shot at winning in 2008 and I am not entirely sure why you are already trying to tear him down.  He has Oprah Winfrey pulling for him??  

Would you rather have a Kucinich get the nomination and get killed by McCain or a Obama nomination and a lot better chance of winning??

The thing about Obama in my opinion is that given his background he fits right in with the rich and wealthy.  

So I don't think that this is as bad a thing for him as it would be for others.  Obama will have to demonstrate that he can reach outside of his comfort zone, but Edwards was in a similar position in 2004 with his trial lawyers.

I don't really have a problem with Obama as long as Pelosi is the leader of the house.  Well so far anyways.  

Despite all the talk of netroots/grassroots/moneybags support, the candidate with the biggest bank account in Q3 the year before the primaries has always gotten the nomination for both major party.

The key is making sure our preferred candidate has the funds.  I don't mind Obama, he's my second choice at this point.  Edwards of course is my first choice.

My home-state Senator, Evan Bayh can't get my vote because he says "nuc-u-lar".

I am astonished that Obama's vote to confirm Abu Gonzalez did not finish him off. If you cannot be against torture, what, if anything, do you stand for?

I really really really hope Gore decides to run. No one can hold a candle to him.

Call me old-fashioned but I'd like to see something he's done or at least has a GRAND vision for.  Some people decide on their presidential candidate quicker than they would someone they'd hire on any low-level job.

The more starfucking involved, the LESS likely it would be for me to like or support him.  I hate hype.

Here's a link to what I wrote about him last week.  I know it's silly, but the fact that he smokes cigarettes annoys me bigtime.  I think a simple picture of him with a cigarette could potentially doom his campaign.  Afterall, nobody likes smokers these days.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/11/27/ 144139/35/17#17

There is no one -NO ONE- with the appeal (fake or not) that Barack Obama has. And I don't want to hear it about Edwards and Gore. Edwards is and has always been a softball politician who has big ideas, but when it comes to being an aggressive politician, has no ideas. And Gore...don't even get me started with Gore. Every time I hear that name, all I see in my mind's eye is that Fahrenheit 9/11 scene of him gaveling each CBC member.

Bottom line: all I care about for 2008 is getting a Democrat elected, since we have no Dean to look to this time. If that means I'm a sellout, so be it.

Hey Matt, wake up.

Cegalis lost in the primary, Obama didn't kick her out.

Why is that so hard for the sore losers to understand.

And BTW.  Mr. Confused.  It was actually Durbin that asked Duckworth to run.

So if the great St. Cegalis couldn't beat Duckworth in the primary.

What makes you think she would have won the general election.

This is the braintrust of the netroots.

Be very afraid.

He's not Hillary, which is great.  

I consider any candidate who slows her momentum and drains her establishment juice good.  Obama has time to either seduce or alienate the netroots, or split the difference.  For now, his attention is on insider Washington...which means he's stealing Hillary's thunder.  Which I think is damn good news.

FWIW, I think Edwards would be a stronger candidate in the general election than Obama. The two of them together, though, with Edwards at the top of the ticket, might be unstoppable.

The net in their takedown Obama campaign is simply full of you know what.

Matt, wants Obama to listen to us.

That is a nice mantra, and is supposed to make you feel all powerful.  But the facts, damn those facts, tell a different story.

We, our Progressive Group, met with Obama right before he went to Washington.  We asked him not to certify the election of Bush because of Ohio.  

His reaction, you want the first thing I do to vote against an election of the President.

Well, he listened, or read up, whatever, he voted down.

Alito, same thing.  The emails he got, I don't know that it changed his mind, but he certainly came over to our view.

Both he and Durbin not only read the emails, but they often write back.  And not just form letters, although they do that as well.  But sometimes actually explain their why they voted their way, and address your concerns.

So carry on with Destroy Obama Week

This is a silly post imo.  Obama is popular because he is enormously charasmatic and quite clearly brilliant.  He has a knack for speaking in a conciliatory, big-tent fashion without compromising on the policy side and without coming off as a bullshitter.

Obama's popularity is very real.  He has earned it through merit.  I believe he would be a great president and I don't believe his lack of experience would lead to his electoral defeat.  I.e. I remain unconvinced that his light resume is a problem either for governing or for campaigning.

I'm a Gore supporter, but if Obama runs and Gore doesn't, Obama gets my vote easily at this point.

Since, according to his recent book, he stopped flying on private jets to avoid conflicts of interest.

Being from Arizona, where politics is often brutal, and to the extent that moderates in the GOP are chopped, diced,and then tossed out the window just to see if there is still a sensate scream, is the typical political behavior.  So, in this vein, I see Gingrich, Barbour, Huckabee, and Brownback taking it to Barack Obama, and it won't be pretty.  

As such, a failed businessman and governor, as was Bush, will require a Yardstick of Measurement, and without such a device, will be detrimental to all us as Democrats.  As I posted previously on another thread here at mydd, to suggest that I attempt again, to get my fellow Democrats to reconsider any behavior that can be perceived as genuflecting at the Altar of Obama, is my purpose in this post.

For starters, we should be looking at the Resume of each particular candidate for the Party's nomination with the concept that the eventual nominee must be helpful to both Reid and Pelosi.

Secondly, executive experience is a must given that there is a considerable mess to be cleaned up.

Thirdly, who righeously opposed the Invasion of Iraq at the outset, will move me in their direction, initially.

Fourthly, as to domestic issues, each issue has a variety of solutions and where "compromise" will be required since McConnell in the Senate for the minority, will be an expert at "obstructionism", and will make life much more difficult.  His history is one in which he will fight tooth and nail regardless of win or loss.  And McConnell is far more experienced, and has forgotten more that Hastert ever learned. Toss in Trent Lott,and this tandem will be more than sufficient to give anyone a long-term headache.

So, let us start with the comparison of a Resume?

Matt,

I don't buy your methodology. Have you used it before? Can you compare a grassroots driven Presidential candidate to one that's "driven from the top"?

If you ask me you'll see patterns like this for every celebrity. One of the weaknesses of the blogosphere is that it is primarily reactionary to the MSM. In my opinion it is not valid to use this as a critique of any one political candidate.

As a footnote I provide a meta-page that I created for Senator Obama's visit to Ohio this year for the ODP dinner.

http://blog.oh02.com/2006/06/05/odp-dinn er-meta-page/

I've never seen such intense local grassroots coverage as that day. Interestingly enough, the MSM coverage of the day was primary focused on a counter event of Black Republicans that Ken Blackwell set up for the same day.

I haven't seen much video of Obama, cause I don't really ever watch TV.  But the few clips I've seen suggest to me that one reason he's popular is that he doesn't talk to you like you're an idiot.  He's smart and confident, and he speaks to his audience as if they're equally smart and confident, and especially after the paralyzing caution and fear-of-the-noise-machine that national Democrats have displayed, and the paralyzing stupidity of Bush Allen Rice Hastert el al, the kind of language and delivery that Obama uses is like crack for liberals.  The West Wing couldn't have invented a more compelling presidential candidate, and it's based entirely on the way he communicates.  

John McCain actually launched his presidential career on exactly the same achievement: noticing the stale political language that everyone hated, and creating a new political language for himself.  He owned the national press corps with it in 2000.  Six years later, his reputation is only now starting to decline from the high point he won for himself.  He's still St John McCain just for having broken that mold.

It sucks that elections can be determined on things as silly as finding a fresh way to communicate, where the content of what's communicated barely matters, but political language in this country is so stale and hollow that if you can make yourself the only guy in the room who has solved that particular riddle, you win.

I presume that the point of all this MyDD/Obama stuff is to make sure that if Obama wins, he will govern the way we want, fighting hard and intelligently for the kinds of things we want, and willing to be a risk-taker in exactly the ways we want.  Great.  We do have a candidate who could easily go all the way (though he could easily flame out or be knocked out too), and we do want to make sure that 1) we know what we're getting, and 2) what we're getting is as close to what we want as we can possibly make it.  I don't know that going hard-negative exclusively is the best idea; I'm inclined to think that very healthy skepticism, plus specific criticism where warranted, plus some specific statements of what exactly Obama could do that would make us like him, is a better mix of rhetoric.  

For example, I would support an Obama primary campaign if he made it clear he was going to govern on, and run on, bold transformative ideas.  I'm sick of tinkering at the margins with partial-birth abortion and fucking ANWR and student loans.  I want a leader with the willingness to push for big solutions to big problems, not small shifts in tired political standoffs.  

Easy first example: come out strong for carbon caps that can be market-traded.  It's overdue, it's an obvious market-inclusive solution, and it hits at a huge problem: Global Warming. It would be big, no one's really talking about it, he could own it, and it fits his best-of-both-sides image anyway (his "awesome God in the blue states and gay friends in the red states" speech).  

Next is Peak Oil; I'm actually interested in biofuels, especially the stems-of-corn and switchgrass stuff, but he could own wind installation and solar/biofuels research if he got serious about it.  It's not like anyone else has.  All he has to do is put forth the skeleton of a proposal that wouldn't cost a jillion dollars and he's put skin in the game.  If it has an innovative financing mechanism, all the better.

If he got really serious about the state of American education, and worked out a deal where, say, we double teacher pay and exterminate tenure, and make k-12 teaching into a serious, results-demanding, you-suck-and-you're-fired career, in which we treat teachers like professionals and pay them like professionals, that would hit the electorate hard.  People always say they care about education, and if you convinced 'em that they were getting something real for the extra money spent, you'd have shown you were serious and only really pissed off the GOP base voters.

And the entire War on Drugs, lock-up-black-people, establish-a-black-market-that-feeds-gang s-and-Police-Departments thing can be revisited too.

Haven't even gotten to foreign policy yet.  At that point, all he really needs to do is say "we need a more intelligent and more sophisticated strategy", and if he's established seriousness and credibility on the domestic issues people get, they won't demand a whole lot of specificity on the foreign affairs stuff they know they don't really get.

Exception is Iraq, but that will be out of his hands for all of 2007 and 2008.  

That's the kind of campaign that I would support.   Big ideas for big problems, especially where they don't have to cost a lot, they just involve changing the way we do things.  The Great Society was a spending program; this would be a series of adjustments and reorganizations, not a bunch of checks.

John McCain staked half his 2000 campaign on campaign-finance reform, so it's not like you can't win on ideas.  Especially if you've got no record, you've got to run on ideas.  And very especially if you know your opponent in the primary is too scared to run on ideas.

Anyway, that is one set of circumstances in which I would support Obama strongly in the primaries.  Now if I had your audience I'd try to say it in a way that didn't make me look like a fool, but I did make clear one set of things that Obama could do that would make me happy.  I don't think you have.

Matt

You say that Edwards is the only one with a "real netroots infrastructure"

I beg to differ. Wes Clark's netroots infrastructure   is much larger and more evolved that Edwards's ever was

There are two fundamental reasons why I don't like Obama.

The first his his use of strawmen to attack people who ought to be his friends. That issue's been beaten to death already, so I won't expand on it other than to say it's the sort of behavior better suited to a schoolyard bully. It's a characteristic shared with Bayh, Biden and Lieberman all of whom I like a lot less than Obama.

The second is that I have a profound instinctive distrust of charismatic and popular people. I've found it's an instinct worth trusting. That particular characteristic is something he shares with Bill Clinton and John Edwards, who are two more Democrats that I like a lot less than Obama.

That said, Obama is easily my second choice for the nomination behind Clark, and first choice if the Republicans choose McCain (slim chance) or Guiliani (no chance in hell). I think Obama would be a pretty good and popular, if not spectacular President, and I think he can win.

I hope Edwards wins, his message about poverty in America is one people need to hear.

Obama can suck a rock.

As the founder of the Draft Obama movement, I'd like to think that that latest spike is directly attributable to his grassroots appeal.

We launched DraftObama.org last week, and had stories on the AP wire and on the front page of CNN.com. We've attracted tens of thousands of visitors to the site, and are growing an all-volunteer organization with very very strong grassroots and netroots connections (as you'll see from our announcement tomorrow).

In less than 24 hours last week, we went from having no volunteers in California to having several mobilized to attend his appearance at the Saddleback church with signs and banners to encourage him to run.

This weekend, we expect 40-50 grassroots volunteers to brave the cold in New Hampshire to be there to cheer him on and encourage him to run as he enters the New Hampshire democratic victory event. These are people who are driving from 2 or 3 states away who can't even get into the sold-out event, but want to let him know they want him to run, and are willing to stand in the cold outside to get the message to him.

Those are hardly the hallmarks of a candidate who  the grassroots eschew. I'm not saying that the insiders aren't interested in Obama, too. But certainly there's a groundswell of grassroots support that you shouldn't overlook.

As an aside, we at DraftObama have zero connections with 1) Washington insiders or 2) Obama or his campaign itself.

Matt, you're confusing "the blogs" with "the people" and the blogosphere with the grassroots.  The curious thing about Barack Obama is that he is a candidate popular with the people AT LARGE, not simply on the net.  Witness, for example, every story about the miles long lines at Obama's book signings.

Also, I suggest you compare Obama'a chart with the blogpulse chart for Edwards, the man you advance as one with netroots support.  Again, spikes, only, they're smaller.  And if you normalize the two graphs, for most of the pre-spike time, Obama has about the same level of chatter as Edwards, it just looks tinier because once people considered Obama a potential candidate (as Ryan Anderson points out), the chatter shot through the roof.  Now, if you want someone who generates constant blogospheric buzz, check out Al Gore.  Though I think it's spectacularly unfair to compare Obama's netroots support and interest with that of Al Gore if you're attempting to compare him to anyone but Al Gore.

Bloggers (Sirota and yourself for example) attack Obama and the traffic on web about Obama rises but you blame that on Obama

On top of that you seem to be confusing the "blogosphre" (which is whatever you've chosen to define and measure as the "blogosphere") with the real world where most of the public and voters live.

You are measuring the pulse of the "patient" as he responds to internal stimulation and then blaming patient's high blood pressure on a third party who is not present but whom the patient is thinking about.

Typically psychotropic drugs would be perscribed to help the patient deal with the internal voices and stimulation which he  was creating in his own mind.

Obama and every other politician have to prove themselves to ME in order to get my vote and my support.  Mr. Obama is too "new" and too "unknown" as a quality for me to pass judgment today. I hope he earns our support, but until then I won't be part of the chorus exhaulting the actions of this junior senator.

As a liberal I have seen that Mr. Obama has voted "the wrong way" on issues dear to me. I'll be watching him more closely now.

Chris makes excellent observations.

From Steve Gilliard

I love Edwards and Obama. I've seen Edwards speak twice and Obama once.

When Edwards spoke, he spoke compelling and clearly about important issues that few politicians talk about, like poverty.

But when Obama spoke, it was impromptu, shortly after Katrina, and it was an audience of liberal lawyers, primarily black.  He said something roughly like, "I know we're all happy to see Bush's popularity fall, but I ask myself, what was I doing for the poor of New Orleans before that hurricane? What were you doing?"  Modern political rhetoric is so self-congratulatory that I was shocked to hear a politician challenge himself, and challenge me. It was so powerful and honest. That's what leaders do, they challenge you to be more than yourself.

Yes, that's a gift for "communication," but isn't that what a democratic leader does? And it's absurd to call a former President of Harvard Law Review and a professor of Constitutional Law an empty suit, just because he happens to be young and popular.

So there's my baseline. I will no longer consider Obama a leader when he stops challenging himself, and challenging me, to be a better public servant.

Matt, in response to your update, at times you seem to forget that it isn't what you say about Obama but how you say it.  The above was an outstanding look into your feelings about him.  Most of your other articles have been ranting and raving like a Fox News Pundit or a Limbaugh, albeit more progressive and 600 pounds lighter.  If you want to dissect and critique Obama, by all means do so.. just use the tone above which is more respectful to those who do support him and comes off as discussion, rather than the earlier tone in which it comes off that you feel Obama sucks and anyone who supports him is an idiot.  That gets people defensive right away... look back at Dean and think how many get upset when someone just rants against Dean rather than a valid constructive criticism... Same situation, different horse.  

"It seems like the Obama-supporters have a sense of trust in the Democratic Party to do what's right, whereas the Obama-skeptics don't share that sense of trust."

ZERO to do with "trust in the Democratic Party"

As Obama No. 1 webfan, it's entirely to do with trust in a guy who is totally not a suit to do what is right based on his doing what he says he believes in and on his personal history.

Most people claim otherwise but I think that is what everybody votes for in the end...the person they like and the person they trust in their gut.

As for the webskeptics on Obama, think it has to do with Netroots/Lamont/Obama triangulation. The "no experience, no track record" is a cover for their emotional vote to punish Obama for real or imagined sins regarding Lamont.

Ironic considering Lamont had zero track record and got unqualified suppport but Obama who has good track record is asked for even more "credentials".

I'm really hoping that Obama runs because of the excitement he brings to the Democratic field. This guy might not be the nominee, but he has as good a shot as anyone else and an Obama presidency would be historic on any number of levels.

More importantly, who really gives a shit what type of campaign candidates run? I was a member of the Dean campaign and saw what happened when all you do is find ways to empower supporters: you get a nationwide circle-jerk and massive electoral disappointment. I love web-centered campaigns, and believe whole heartedly in the importance of empowering supporters, but let's be real here for a second. Just because someone looks good on TV doesn't mean they don't have grassroots support, and just because someone does an old media style campaign doesn't mean they won't make a good nominee, or president. What is going on here is the same thing that happens at sites like Pitchfork where the new guard of taste-makers needs to tear down all things that have MSM acceptance to secure their role as taste-makers. I hope that MyDD can move beyond player hating.

Nobody here has mentioned the things he has done.  But Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has mentioned the things Obama has done, and it seems like a pretty impressive record to me.  I'm going to post the intro here, but the whole thing is great.  And it needs to be the starting point for a conversation about Obama, not the 'People Powered' problems that Matt has.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_ wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

"His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind.

His legislation is often proposed with Republican co-sponsorship, which brings me to another point: he is bipartisan in a good way. According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side.

This isn't what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle. (This is especially true when one is in the minority party, especially in this Senate: the chances that Obama's bills will actually become law increase dramatically when he has Republican co-sponsors.)

So my little data point is: while Obama has not proposed his Cosmic Plan for World Peace, he has proposed a lot of interesting legislation on important but undercovered topics. I can't remember another freshman Senator who so routinely pops up when I'm doing research on some non-sexy but important topic, and pops up because he has proposed something genuinely good. Since I think that American politics doesn't do nearly enough to reward people who take a patient, craftsmanlike attitude towards legislation, caring as much about fixing the parts that no one will notice until they go wrong as about the flashy parts, I wanted to say this."

1. Who on earth can believe the Obama surge is top-down power-broker driven? The rock-star phenomenon has to do with how the public responds to him. Grassroots organizers like myself are working tirelessly and finding great response whereever we go. The insiders are with Hillary or Gore, not Obama. He is driving them nuts from outside-in!
   
2. Who else can stop Hillary and prevent another Democratic defeat in Nov '08?
   
3. The nation aches for a new less-divisive politics, and Obama connects with crowds ranging from far left to far right. Insiders can't make crowds like that. They wish they could.
   
4. Netroots go for idealogically-pure leaders who lick their wounds after elections, Kucinich, Lamont, Dean. Get real!