Reason #1 Why Barack Obama Will Not Win In '08

For all of Barack Obama's laudatory qualities, he has recently made a huge blunder that I believe is going to cost him a chance at the Democratic nomination in '08. And that blunder is that Obama has said publically that he is considering running.

And so now supporters of other Democratic candidates have started sharpening their knives to kill an Obama candidacy before it can even get out of infancy. Pundits and the blogosphere are on fire with critiques of Obama.

  • Yesterday Atrios said "Obama's triangulation is more rhetorical than real. One can triangulate by picking a Third Way position, or one can triangulate by picking a position and calling it the Third Way and that's what Obama tends to do. See Tomasky's review of his book in the NYRB. It may be dishonest or he may genuinely mean it, and I don't much care. Dishonesty has an honorable place in politics. My problem with triangulation has nothing to do with dishonesty or personal affront - I don't expect politicians to cater to me in their speeches. My problem with triangulation is that it's a way for a man to win an election, but not a way to build a party's brand. It's a short term strategy to benefit an individual, not a long term strategy to increase the size of the tribe."
  • Michael Barone: "Obama has the ability to be a strong candidate. But it's not clear, perhaps not even to himself, whether he has the capacity to be a strong and effective president."
  • John Heilemann in New York Magazine: "For all his promise, Obama is basically an empty vessel, with vulnerabilities that have been obscured by his blinding, meteoric ascent. And though it’s not impossible for him to win the Democratic nomination, the road to that destination will be rougher than his adherents admit—or, quite possibly, than Obama himself imagines."
  • John Fund in the Wall Street Journal: "Only for so long will Mr. Obama's sparkling personality help him avoid troubling questions about his ideological record. The fact that he originally opposed the war in Iraq would help him with primary voters, but it's unclear how many Democrats want to plump for someone who, according to National Journal, has a more liberal voting record than Hillary Clinton. Last year Mr. Obama had a perfect 100% voting record from both the Americans for Democratic Action and the AFL-CIO."

I believe that this is just the beginning of attacks on Obama and highlights his inexperience as a politician.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.goodwillhinton.com/trackback/227

Comments

The inexperience is the only thing....

...that can bring him down if he officially runs. BUT, his edge is that he isn't that much less experienced than HRC, who is the only other real Democrat option. It's not like he is dealing with a Gore or Kerry, who really could exploit that.

The run of the 2008 Dem nomination is boiled down to this - who will the party see as the return of Bill Clinton? Hilary has the name and the actual man on her side, Obama has the personality and charm.

inexperience

Will, guru,

Sure the critics will find some reason to criticize, and if the candidate does not win say 'see I told you so.' No one thought GWB had the experience either, although he did run the Texas Rangers for a short while, and Bill Clinton was criticized for lack of experience as well. It is a common criticism. However, that same 'liability' of inexperience can be used as an asset by portraying one as an outsider, not swayed by the pessimists. Is it enough? Maybe. Generally speaking, our modern presidents have had a certain 'cult of personality' that often overcomes the perceived shortcomings of the candidate. If the vote was based solely on rational thought, you might have a point, and the criticism may sway some, but for the great many who vote based on the cult of personality, inexperience means nothing.

Whether Obama will win or not remains to be seen. He certainly has a lot to overcome. While I understand Will's rationale for discounting Obama's candidacy, it is far too early for me to agree with the statement that he won't win.

One criticism of your comment

Everything's spot on, but you don't go far enough. Far from inexperience being a liability, it's an asset. Look at what happened to Kerry (or Dole before him): a long record only gives more grist for the swiftboating mill. To build on your absolutely correct point about our political cult of personality, one doesn't need experience; one needs "gravitas", its perverse cult of personality double.

Is experience all it is cracked up to be?

Considering the legacy of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, is experience all that is cracked up to be?

Do we really want someone to come in with previous baggage? Maybe America wants a fresh start (ala Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan) without people who are fighting 20th century fights.

I'm concerned about Obama's inexperience, but how he handles the barbs and attacks will tell me a lot about his ability to deal with the unknown and uncertainty that will arrive under his presidency.

I'm still a full-fledged member of the Richardson in '08 camp, but I'm certainly open to Obama if he can show that he's got the best plan for moving America forward.

Money is Still the Mother's Milk of Politics

The pundits will fling words; the candidates will state their intentions, but the war chests will still determine the outcome. Obama and Hillary may both be as inexperienced as GWBush was back in 1998 when he started his campaign. The difference? GWBush had $57 million in the bank. Will the major Dems find the funding to win? THAT is the question.

TheOldMan

"No Experience Needed"

You know, this experience arguement will get old really quick with America. The most populous state in the US (California for the geography impaired) elected an entertainer with little or no experience in politics, as governor (twice in the last 40 years). Same with Minnesota.

One of those 3 Governors became President. I think this is proof that this country will elect a President based more on charisma and appealing values then just experience. Besides, anyone who knows the slightest about the job, knows that the Vice President is who needs the experience.

Obama happens to have that "entertainer appeal" without ever being in movies, but has a little political experience to go with it. Once he gets a few national debates under his belt, the "inexperience factor" will fade away.

When we first started out, I

When we first started out, I thought -- and believed -- that Hillary Clinton has the most chance. As a matter of fact, as I looked at the candidates against her, it was only a matter of time before I came to the conclusion that she would -- however audaciously -- win.

But, my friends, Obama came into the picture. His charm, wit, and outstanding personality will triumph over Clinton. She's a good candidate -- better than most -- but she can't win. Obama has raised more money than her (well, he was a million short, but he gets to use more in the general election).

It doesn't matter if he's inexperienced -- people do not care about that! If they did, he would have been MIA a long time ago.

Haha hinton, guess your

Haha hinton, guess your story was WRONG!!

Yeah, I just can't believe I

Yeah, I just can't believe I am so stupid. :)

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.