Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka

The political universe is exploding over the possibility of Barak Obama running for President in 2008. Everyone is offering advice to the young Senator on how he should proceed. Bob Hebert yesterday said that Obama should not run in 08, rather he should stay in the Senate, gain experience, and then run the next time possible (2012 or 2016).

He and others telling Obama to wait are rightfully nervous about such a young and inexperienced candidate running for President in 2008. If he wins the Democratic primary, he could be chewed up alive by a much more experienced GOP candidate. (McCain anyone?)

But Hebert is wrong for telling Obama to stay in the Senate.

I don't normally give advice to Democracts, but here goes:

Mr. Obama, get the hell out of the Senate as soon as possible. The Senate is where Presidential aspirations go to die. Senators simply don't make good Presidential candidates. The last person to go straight from the Senate to the White House? JFK. Before that? Warren Harding.

Senators enter the primaries with voting records follow them around till they drop out of the race or lose to the other party's candidate. ("John Kerry voted 5 times for taking away puppies from senior citizens!") They have no leadership skills, no experience is running anything. Senators mostly talk.

The best candidates are those with Executive and thus managerial experience. Almost all our Presidents have been either Governors or Vice-Presidents. Bush 43, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter were all Governors. Bush 41, Nixon, LBJ, and Truman were all Vice-Presidents. Eisenhower was a General.

So Mr. Obama, here's my advice. Run for Governor of Illinois. And if Illinois isn't available, run for Governor of Ohio, Indiana, or any other State. But don't stay in the Senate, unless you're sure that you'll be picked as Hillary's VP in 2008, and you're sure Hillary will win.

That's how you'll end up having a chance at the White House.

Two thoughts:

1) If he runs now, it may be too early for the Senate to negatively affect perception of him.

2) It may be the case that by 2008, the public will be so fed up with Bush and the Republicans that whoever is the Democratic nominee will win. Whether Obama is at the top of the ticket or the bottom, he could still get in.

Other thought:

Obama may be an especially strong candidate in such a time because he can pull off pushing Democratic values without being divisive.

1. In 2008, there's a good chance the GOP candidate will be Romney or some other Governor. If a Dem candidate runs on a "I'm not Bush" platform, it's not going to work, as the GOP candidate will have little or no ties to Bush or Washington Republicans.

2. Right now, Obama is way too green to run. Do you, or anyone else know what exactly he stands for? I don't think he himself knows that answer. That's why he's got to get experience, but just not in the Senate.

1. One doesn't have to run on "I'm not Bush" for anti-Bush feeling to carry him or her into office. I don't think we're going to nominate Kerry again, after all. :-) (His platform was... I'm like Bush, but I'll do a slightly better job.) Obama can just show up, be demonstrably intelligent, articulate, and non-polarizing and the distinction will speak for itself.

2. I think he's a good enough talker that he'll convince people what he stands for. It seems the trend lately is that experience isn't that important anyway. Dubya and Clinton were both very young, although both admittedly had been governors. Remember Cheney was supposed to be the experience on the Bush-Cheney ticket. Perhaps Obama could have a seasoned politician like Gore as VP.

Regarding Romney, I can't believe a governor from TAXACHUSETTES!! can win the GOP primary. Not in this day and age. I also can't believe Giuliani will win due to his being a social moderate-liberal, and you can't bank on McCain not self-destructing. In other words, I'm not sure the GOP will have a great candidate.

Obama can just show up, be demonstrably intelligent, articulate, and non-polarizing and the distinction will speak for itself.

You're assuming the GOP candidate won't be the same.

Regarding Romney, I can't believe a governor from TAXACHUSETTES!! can win the GOP primary. Not in this day and age.

I think that he's a Mormon will be more of a handicap than being the governor of Mass. If anything it will help, as he can make inroads in the NorthEast, not exactly GOP terratory.

You're assuming the GOP candidate won't be the same.

Good point. All of the GOP candidates I know of are pretty good at speaking. Still, Obama's really, really good at it.

I think that he's a Mormon will be more of a handicap than being the governor of Mass.

Put them together and there's no way he makes it.

If Obama becomes president, he'll be the first Columbia College alum to ever hold that post, which clearly makes me a fan...

I have no idea whether you (LWY) read responses to posts this old, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

Obviously, your prediction was very, very off. But your analysis wasn't half-bad. If it didn't come true, that's because Obama strongly bucked the historical trend--in a host of ways.

Part of what happened was that this became the first election in which both nominees were senators without any executive political experience. Therefore, the inherent weaknesses of senators as presidential candidates was effectively canceled out.

Indeed, McCain's greater experience in the Senate may have been to his detriment, because it meant he had a longer record for his opponents to scrutinize and use against him.

Whether Obama would have survived against a former governor such as Romney or Huckabee is anyone's guess, though the conventional wisdom is that the race became all but unwinnable for a Republican after the Wall Street meltdown.

Then again, this was a race to make us all question conventional wisdom.