This question occurred to me yesterday, but it came back to mind when I was reading the NYT this morning and the sidebar invited me to read something from the archive, from 25 years ago: "First Black Elected to Head Harvard's Law Review."
''The fact that I've been elected shows a lot of progress,'' Mr. Obama said today in an interview. ''It's encouraging. But it's important that stories like mine aren't used to say that everything is O.K. for blacks. You have to remember that for every one of me, there are hundreds or thousands of black students with at least equal talent who don't get a chance,'' he said, alluding to poverty or growing up in a drug environment.'...Is today the day you will read for the first time of a young person who is a future President?
''For better or for worse, people will view it as historically significant,'' said Prof. Randall Kennedy, who teaches contracts and race relations law. ''But I hope it won't overwhelm this individual student's achievement.''
Why am I thinking like this? I must want some distance from the current focus on the actual set of persons who are running (or walking or hobbling) for President. I mean, here's an actual title of an a current NYT column: "Why Jeb Bush Might Lose." That's the most ludicrously boring thing I've seen this morning.
Posts
24 comments:
Me. I'll only be 81 in 2024. A time of great wisdom.
Not editor, of course. We now know why that was important.
Roosevelt was well known in 1920, 12 years before being elected president. Harding was a Senator. Most presidents had more of a career than Obama and we now know why that was important. Obama may still be a mystery in 12 years.
For 49 states Walker pretty much filled that bill up to a few months ago.
Depends how far into the weeds one currently goes.
I am Laslo.
I'll be 64 in 2024. Will you still feed me?
Would Stacie Laughton count?
Given another dozen years her past could be seen as a plus, having Fought in the Struggle Against the System.
And then there is That Other Thing.
I am Laslo.
"There are hundreds or thousands of black students with at least equal talent who don't get a chance,"
My parents were the first in their families to attend college and both got advanced degrees. I assume their parents and grandparents were equally intelligent. But because of a lack of resources, families to care for, a different time etc. they too "didn't have a chance".
Maybe its more than just the color of one's skin.
And, for Meade: WE know about Freeman Hunt, but we are a select crowd. Would she count?
If so: 2028.
I am Laslo.
In 2008, we got Barack Obama, who most of the population first heard about in 2004.
In 1992, I'd say Bill Clinton came essentially from out of nowhere the year before -- how many people can name the current governor of Arkansas?
If the GOP screws up royally, 2016 could be the year we elect someone most people haven't even heard of yet. I still maintain that the Democratic Party's best move is to nominate a charismatic young governor or big-city mayor (or former of either) -- someone who plays well for the camera and is essentially a blank slate -- and to let the major media create a soft-focus impressionist-style favorable impression for the electorate.
Finally, in keeping with the careful-attention-to-language theme of this blog (which is one of the reasons I read it), barring tragedy none of the years listed in the post can possibly be the year we will have a new president. Those are the years in which we will elect a new president -- he or she won't become president until late January of the following year.
My first guess: 2025 -- a charismatic young Democrat who won a governor's mansion in the Democratic wave of 2018, and got lots of positive press in the intervening years.
Second guess: 2017 -- a charismatic young Democrat who campaigns as a blank slate amid a deluge of third-party mudslinging at the GOP candidate.
I'm 64 right now, and Meade just cooked me a strip of bacon.
My granddaughter is eligible to run in 2052.
Are you excluding the children of current politicians, like Chelsea and Jeb's son? And are we just folks, or followers of politics. Like back when Clinton first ran, he was being tagged as someone to watch (and not just by Hillary). Of course the "Great Mentioner" is often wrong. I remember a West Point football player who was tagged as a surefire future President (not Ike, I'm not that old) but he flamed out.
By 2040 Richard Nixon's first clone will be out of the test tube and dry enough to run for office.
Jimmy Carter came out of nowhere, as did Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
That's really the trick to getting a Democrat elected president. The less that people know about them, the more likely people are to vote for them.
Hillary Clinton is not going to be her party's nominee, and that's got me worried that some dingbat will come out of nowhere and people will be so relieved it's not Hillary that they'll vote for the guy (it'll be a guy, trust me) over the much better-known (warts and all, especially warts) Republican.
Take Martin O'Malley. I'll ask you, Professor, what do you know about him? That he's a guitarist and looks good with his shirt off (maybe he and Vlad Putin could do a chest-bumping contest?), and probably less than you'd find out looking him up on Wikipedia. Those of us living in Maryland and Northern Virginia also know that he never met an untaxed item he didn't want to tax, nor a tax he didn't want to raise. He was elected twice in an incandescently blue state, but I think in a normal state he'd have been a one-termer.
That won't stop you from voting for O'Malley in Wisconsin's open primary as the latest ABH (anybody but Hillary), and then deciding that if you voted for him in the primary you should follow through a vote for him in November. It's how things work.
I have to admit, I like Jeb Bush better after reading Andrew Ferguson's Weekly Standard article about him. As to age, I've got my three score and ten.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/andrew-ferguson#
I daydream sometimes about a future where the president of the United States has so little power that only political junkies will know or care who has the job.
This is not to imply a diminution of the United States, only of the intrusiveness of government.
Eventually we'll get someone who fought in the military again. HW was the last one.
"I remember a West Point football player who was tagged as a surefire future President (not Ike, I'm not that old) but he flamed out."
If that was Pete Dawkins, he didn't "flame out."
At the conclusion of his 24-year career in the Army, Dawkins retired with the rank of brigadier general in 1983. Following his retirement from the Army, Dawkins took up a position as a partner in the Wall Street firm Lehman Brothers,[5] later becoming vice-chairman of Bain & Company. In 1991, he moved on to become chairman and CEO of Primerica. Dawkins is currently a senior partner at Flintlock Capital Asset Management.
He was also quite critical of the Army in Vietnam but did work with those who transitioned to the volunteer force.
@BigMike,
I notice that the Democratic Party nominated someone young/fresh-faced/new in 1960.
And in 1976. And in 1992. And in 2008.
Almost like there's a 16-year cycle going on.
Twice, it was a young Senator. Twice, it was a governor who was nearly-unknown outside their home state.
(Though John Kennedy had more accomplishments as Federal Representative and Senator than Obama did.)
Well Barack Obama finally said one thing that was true; that there were hundreds, if not thousands (or more accurately hundreds of thousands) of people both black and white who had more talent (and intellectual horsepower as well) than Barack Obama. Trouble is that Barack really doesn't believe that. Narcissus sees only one supreme person in the mirror.
re: Michael K--yes, Dawkins was who I was trying to remember. If I remember--doubtful--he was tagged as certain to be the top Army general, at least, so while "flame out" may be unjust, he did fall short of some predictions.
To me the only real out-of-nowhere Democratic presidential nominee was Carter. JFK was seriously considered for veep in '56. McGovern ran in '68. Clinton was keynote speaker in '88 and Obama in '04. Carter was a complete nobody who could appear on What's my line after leaving the governorship. It took the combined trauma of Vietnam and Watergate to make Jimmy Carter possible. I wonder what set of traumas would make a Carter possible in '20 or '24. For the moment, the Obama and Palin experiences favor known quantities. Of course, with modern media you can become famous much faster. Hence Cruz.
" he did fall short of some predictions."
I think he was angry at the Army in Vietnam. He retired when he could have gone up the ladder. A lot of guys in the military at that level have kids to educate and may doubt the career path. The top generals at the time he was still in the Army are described in McMasters' book "Dereliction of Duty." I can see why he left. I think he was the youngest BG in the Army.
I didn't remember reading that 1990 story about Obama, if I ran acriss it.
No person becomes first heard of at the same time to all people.
I first heard of Obama in 2004 - only four years before he was elected president, but I didn't remember his name only that he was The Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, and that the Republicans had recruited Alan Keyes from Maryland to run against him when the previous opponent dropped out.
1990 is not really the date for Obama. 2004 is.
Some people who were elected president were known well in advance. Like Ronald Reagan.
Post a Comment