December 18, 2006

Why Barack Obama might not run.

John Fund analyzes the situation. The main reason seems to be that Hillary Clinton wants so badly to win.


Art said...

Good attack strategy on the part of a Republican. Discredit candidate "A" by saying the other candidate is so ruthless he'll never survive the "brass knuckles job."
When candidate "A" quits either because he didn't want to go through with it or more likely, is selected out by the nominating process (Someone has to lose) you've tagged candidate "B" with the "ruthless" image so that for the rest of the campaign, every interview begins with, "Before we talk about your tax policy, I want to ask if you've destroyed the Democratic party by taking out a candidate far more popular than you?"

Anonymous said...

John Fund is a douchebag. About the only remotely underreported angle in this whole piece is that Obama hasn't had to run a difficult campaign yet. The rest is garbage and/or wishful thinking.

It's mostly Republicans who think Democrats are really scared about running Hillary.

Tim said...

Fund writes: "Mr. Obama knows that Hillary Clinton is a vulnerable front-runner. But he also knows that her side will haul out the brass knuckles to stop him. "Just a little while ago, he was in Springfield worrying about license-tag fees," is how one Hillary advisor told Newsweek magazine described one of the attack lines that would be used against him. "There's a fine line between an empty suit and an empty vessel into which people want to pour their hopes," says one national political journalist."

And count on the Hillary! knife-men to blur the distinction in the mind of Democratic primary voters. Fund doesn't write it (yet), but Hillary! is very likely to make Tom Delay look like a pastry chef. Democrat contributors (and "cover our bets" corporate contributors) will very likely get the message that contributions to candidates not Hillary! will have adverse consequences, so don't even think about it.

Success for BHO or any other Democrat wanna-be hinges upon a substantial "anyone but Hillary!" movement within the Democrat party. Absent that, she wins the nomination and will exact punishment upon those who opposed the effort. Hubert Humphrey she isn't; BHO recognizes that, at least, and maybe recognizes he isn't the one to slay the dragon.

Simon said...

From the article:
"Many voters want to get beyond the stale culture-war issues fought over by rival camps of baby boomers. Mr. Obama's uplifting rhetoric about 'looking for something different' is appealing."

Quite aside from what on earth being "a walking, talking hope machine" means (which I suspect is absolutely nothing: Ronald Reagan was a "a walking, talking hope machine," but he buttressed the rhetoric with precisely what is missing from Obama: substance. An idea. A Plan. The stuff that matters), this just begs the question of what he proposes to do about these issues.

This "can't we all just agree to disagree" stuff is an appealing but facile façade. These are not issues that are going away; everyone wants to get beyond them, but "everyone" wants to get beyond them by way of the sort of compromise that Packers fans might have agreed to in Superbowl XXXI: neither side scoring in the 4th Quarter ain't much of a compromise when you're ahead in the 3rd. Liberals own the status quo in the culture wars, so for Obama to come in and say "guys, just forget about this stuff" comes over as just a transparent attempt to close out any more plays.

Anonymous said...

BTW the smelliest piece of garbage is the comparison to Colin Powell, who has exactly one thing in common with Obama.

Tim said...

"It's mostly Republicans who think Democrats are really scared about running Hillary."


This Republican, and all the Republicans I know, think the Dems are getting ready to coronate Hillary! as their nominee.

We think two of the more interesting aspects of this gladiator fight to watch will be how ruthlessly and efficiently Hillary! dispatches her opponents, and how her campaign becomes the de facto Sen. Majority Leader. It will be fun to see how the Sen. Majority Leader becomes another water boy for the junior Senator from Illi, er, New York.

Simon said...

Doyle, who are you leaning towards at the moment for '08?

The Drill SGT said...

Doyle said...
BTW the smelliest piece of garbage is the comparison to Colin Powell, who has exactly one thing in common with Obama.


1. being the son of an immigrant father?
2. graduates of NY, NY colleges?
3. a fresh face in their respective campaigns?
4. positioned left of the front runner?
5. getting huge media hype?
6. the public knowing little about their positions on many subjects?
7. being seen as "uniters, not dividers"?

yeah, it's just that race thing.

Anonymous said...

Wow. Looking at that list, I'm wondering if maybe, in fact, they're the same person!

SteveR said...

"who has exactly one thing in common with Obama"

Let me guess, their dads weren't born in the USA? Is that the one thing?

Anonymous said...

If the election were held today I'd vote for Edwards, but I'm hoping Gore runs and am open to being wooed by Clinton or Obama, should they decide to stop sounding like candy-asses and doing anti-video game violence appearances with Lieberman.

MadisonMan said...

Is there any reason to take to heart anything the WSJ writes about Democratic Politics? Maybe we should all read the Progressive as well to understand the evolving Republican race for the '08 Presidency.

Having said that, if Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton can knock each other out of the race so a non-Senator can win, I'm all for it.

Simon said...

Why Edwards in particular?

reader_iam said...

Oh, I don't know. Taking it to heart is one thing, but as part of the mix, I think it's useful to read cross-camp analyses.

vh: bwwbadgu

Zeb Quinn said...

And beyond the superficialities on the list, Powell has actually accomplished things in his life.

Me, I'm still dubious that either Hillary or Obama have anything near what it takes to survive the crucible of a presidential primary campaign. Play these games with potential hypothetical candidates if you will, but history is chock full of the names of supposed front-running media-crowned potentates fading from sight quickly once the voting begins. For instance, like the darling of the day 4 years ago in Iowa, Howard Dean, Hillary's chances would quickly evaporate if she were to reprise her any semblance of her shriek-speech. Pffffft.

Dave said...

The one heartening thing to read about Obama from this article is that, apparently, he is neither Al Jackson nor Jesse Sharpton.

Bruce Hayden said...

I would guess that the thing that Doyle likes about Edwards is his ability to run ob/gyns out of business through junk science. Definately someone we need in the White House.

Dave said...

"I would guess that the thing that Doyle likes about Edwards is his ability to run ob/gyns out of business through junk science."

Well, this is a good thing, right? If there are fewer OB/GYNs practicing, then fewer kids will be born healthy, which means that the environment will be less stressed by millions of people spewing their waste.

That's good, right? The fewer kids out there the better?

WV: bbjoi -- baby joy?

How is it that WV pops up something a propos to the post being written?

Anonymous said...

This will be a long 2 years, and if you think Fund is a pompous ass, it will be nothing after they let the real ghouls out of the cages.

Hillary's secret police force. Shadow Governments. Troopergate. Chinagate. Vince Foster cover-up. The suspicious death of Ron Brown. Clinton ties to drug smuggling. OKC Bombing cover-up. The Clinton "body-count"

Brought to you by Lucianne Goldberg, Christopher Ruddy, Joseph Farah, and Richard Scaife.

Anonymous said...

...and the KosKids. Don't forget how much THEY hate Hillary, Naked Lunch!

Steven said...

Can someone point me to a John Fund column that, if read six months later, would cause anyone to suspect that he had any clue as to what he was talking about?

Anonymous said...

I love how Doyle gets us going with a good round of vulgar name-calling aimed at a guy who has the affrontery to take a different position than his.

One thing I know about Obama. He will swiftly and mercilessly kick to the curb any of his supporters who go around calling right-of-center journalists "douchebags." Obama is the Kos/Atrios/MyDD/Doyle/"dave" killer. And that's a good enough reason to be for him. The left needs to be rid of these childish people.

Fund is correct (in his douchebaggy way) that Obama's record makes him the liberal in the race. Yet I, as a centrist Democrat, have fallen for him as really the only winning candidate we've got. Hilary is only electable if the Reeps nominate someone like Romney, or if by failing to nominate a social right winger, there's a Republican schism. It could happen. But otherwise -- she's a tired choice. Edwards? Spare me. He's the Karl Rove of the left, and a complete phony.

I like Obama despite his liberalism, and despite his inexperience because he's the first Democrat in awhile who doesn't act like he thinks people who disagree with him are his moral inferiors. I think his presidency would be a lot like JFK's or FDR's -- a lot of smart people engaged in a spirited and sincere debate about the nation's problems, with Obama acting as the final judge -- the "decider" if you will.

Obama will take the kind of risks that the tactics of Clintonism argue against, meaning we will finally have a Democratic president whose first question about every issue isn't, "Dick, how quickly can you get me some polling numbers on this?"

Paco Wové said...

"...gets us going with a good round of vulgar name-calling aimed at a guy who has the [e]ffrontery to take a different position than his."

"Do not feed the trolls": the oldest and most ignored advice on the Internet.