Was reading this article on BA in Time , and was wondering…is Obama REALLY too new/young to make a serious run for president in the next election? Not much of an OP (its sunday morning and I’m totally hung over :)), I know…just want to hear why he is or is not too new, and what his realistic chances might be.
-XT
He’s only a freshman senator. He’ll still be a freshman senator in 2008. Yes, I’d say he’s too new. Besides, governors seem to stand a better chance than senators anyway.
Clinton and Carter were virtually unknown outside their own states before they ran for preesident, much less famous than Obama.
Ah, but govenernors do better precisely because senators accumalate voting records that can can be taken out of context and used against them. A newer senator doesn’t have such a record.
Articulate. The American Dream, on one side first generation born an American, rising to the top. Classic American values. Religious (America likes that.) A hybrid of American culture. And there may no better time for him. More of a senatorial record may go against him. The opposing field is weak. Remember Kennedy was elected with only one House term and one Senatorial term under his belt. Being photogenic and articulate and right on the pulse of America with the issues counts for a lot.
Hey, Kennedy only had one full term in the Senate behind him (he was a year into his second) when he launched his bid.
John Edwards was a freshman Senator when he ran in '04.
And one reason governors have more success than Senators in Presidential elections is that Senators have a long list of votes that can be used against them in attack ads. From that perspective, a junior Senator has an advantage over a senior one, having a shorter record open to attack.
Or, what DSeid said.
But they were both governors.
Is there any reason to believe that Obama is even remotely qualified to be president?
He’s 35, he was born in the US, and he hasn’t aleady served two terms as President. Those are the basic qualifications.
No those are the legal requirements to become president. Achieving them does not make one qualified to be president.
Yeah, and his lack of a record didn’t help him, did it? Kennedy ran 40-plus years ago, and at that point I would expect it was easier to deal with his lack of a record. Obama or Edwards would be facing, potentially, a 20-year Senator or a former Mayor of New York, and I don’t think the mood of the country is very similar to what it was in 1960. I think their inexperience could be a major problem.
Obama could be a good candidate someday, but if people keep insisting he should be running now, I’m worried it’ll damage his career. What has he done in the Senate? What can he say that he’s actually accomplished as a national figure, other than giving a good speech at the Democratic Convention in '04?
And why would anyone outside Arkansas care that Bill Clinton was a governor? It’s not like he turned Arkansas into the greatest state in the Union.
Let me turn your question around: what are the qualifications for President? Really. And how have we done with recent choices by that metric?
The implication by those who claim that Obama is too young/inexperienced is that one qualification is experience manging an Executive branch well, but few have voted for former governors by way of evaluation of their past executive performance. Senators do not accumulate executive experience with time; they just become “insiders” with, as already noted, records to defend.
What do people really vote for? Someone who they feel shares their values. Someone smart enough to surround themselves with intelligent advisors who share an inspiring view of America’s future. Someone who says things in such a way that most feel that’s what they each felt and knew all along, he’s just saying better.
By that metric he might just qualify better than anyone else.
Has that ever stopped anyone (including the current president) from running before? Has that ever stopped the public from electing anyone before? I suspect the OP is about Obama’s “electability”.
In other words, what DSeid said more articulately than I.
You know what always worries me about Obama’s chance of getting elected presisdent? His name. Seriously. Every time I hear it it makes me think of Osama bin Laden. And even if there was no such person as Osama bin Laden, wouldn’t many Americans–even those white Americans who would definitely consider voting for a black man–be put off by what they might perceive as such a “foreign sounding name”?
PLEASE don’t get me wrong here-- I have no problem with his name, and I think I could certainly vote for him depending on what I learn about him as he comes under greater scrutiny (and who his opponent is-- though the likelihood of my voting for an “R” is rather slim-- maybe a McCain or a Powell, or who’s that lady senator from New England?-- but other than that— pshaw…)
Um, we’ve had presidents far less qualified than him.
So you’re saying that DSeid is…
And he’s been a resident for more than 14 years. Everyone forgets that one.
Intelligence, experience in foreign relations, running an executive branch, knowledge of military affairs, etc. Pretty much anything that one can point to and say, “I would be a good president becuase of X”.
Well, that’s what we did with Bush and it didn’t really turn out very well.