Of course, I voted for Obama twice. I think he was a great rhetorician and a decent president. Not transformative. I would call Bill Clinton a “placeholder president”: someone who is competent and keeps the current system going but isn’t transformative. Obama was that plus Obamacare, basically. Biden is, IMO, a much stronger leader overall than Obama.
Obama, therefore, feels like a figure of the past. Appreciated but like, over, man. Ya dig? And Michelle feels a part of that past. She was a great First Lady in every way, but I have no desire to have her try to be a leader in Democratic politics.
We have a Black woman, however, who will be ready to lead in a few years: Kamala Harris. I’ve always been a fan, and I think she becomes stronger year by year. Let’s go with her, shall we?
Right, @InternetLegend. When will people learn that politics is a skill that takes years to master. POTUS is one of the hardest jobs in the world. Why expect an amateur to instantly master it?
Hillary was a Senator and Secretary of State. I think all future presidents should have at least that on their resumes. Especially the latter. Travel around the world and look at leaders eye to eye. Putin, Xi, Kim looked at Trump and instantly saw a toy they could play with. Clinton had already been seen as an equal.
The difference in qualification between the two major party candidates in the 2016 US presidential election was so vast that I’m still astonished that the voting ended up as it did.
Charlie Baker, former two-term governor of Massachusetts, is just the man. Smart, competent, socially liberal, worked well with the Democratic-controlled legislature, despised Trump. Hell, I’d vote for him for president over either of the current contenders, and I’m otherwise an unwavering Blue voter.
He would, of course, have zero chance to win the GOP nomination.
Y’see, the way I saw it at the time, was that taking office as Obama did after a devastating economic collapse, he had the sense to understand that Job One was to put out that fire and restore stability (and to this day many lament that more big bankers did not end up in jail or living under bridges). Immediately after that, the ACA was the one true must-get programmatic priority, and between the two, there went all political capital ammo in the magazine by the time that first midterm rolled around (and really, expecting better from the opposition 12 years after Gingrich’s contract? Yeah I’ll give you naive).
But, yes: if we are going to seek a transformative, inspiring, motivating President, we need at this point one that can tell us right now what is going to be the transformation and to what will she inspire and motivate us and convince us she CAN and will go for it which includes having made her own political bones. And we need that. The Democratic Party cannot find itself condemned to forever run “Safest Most Non-Threatening Person Possible”. Running to Win has the advantage over running to Not Lose.
(OK, so it also helps if she can get her voters to also show up for elections where she is not top of the ticket. Mr. Obama had a bit of a problem with that.)
But just looking at it based on some sort of persona mystique doesn’t do it for me. My question has always been why some people want to imagine that Michelle Obama would be the option to reach for, and Akaj has provided an explanation of why look at it that way. But I don’t see or feel it when I look at her, and all her public expressions are that she doesn’t either. Then again as long as she doesn’t, everyone can project upon her what they wish they’d get, right?
It’s hard to slag my fellow Americans, but look at the recent record.
Obama was stymied throughout his presidency by opposition that was purely racist. Clinton was thwarted in her campaign by massive sexism. Trump was elected. That’s a horrible enough sentence on its own, but a because must be added: because, in great part, he represented the racists and sexists, who knew that he would govern as they would.
Needless to say, a Michelle Obama campaign - and in the unlikely event she won, her presidency - would be smothered under racism and sexism.
And so would Kamala Harris’s.
It may be a generation before that changes. In the meantime, the Democrats need a Great White Male Hope for 2028. I didn’t see that coming. I thought we had gotten past that nonsense. I was wrong.
I interpret it a little differently. It wasn’t so much that the GOP opposed Obama because he is Black. I think it was two things in concert:
The GOP lost its purpose and policy agenda (other than cutting taxes) and turned to what it does now as its only option: obstructing the Democrats and fomenting rage. It would have done this with any Democratic president, since that’s all it had left.
Downscale and authoritarian whites were beginning to feel, "Oh fuck, we are not in control any more, we are beginning to lose out in terms of demographics, and Obama became a symbol of that.
Then along came Trump with his birtherism, which was explicitly racist, and the rest is the tragic history of the GOP.
I guess my quibble is with your word “purely” per my point #1 above. Racism became a tool because they had nothing left in terms of policy or vision.
Clinton was despised by the right for over two decades because she was, with Bill, a Clinton. So she wasn’t a pure play, so to speak.
Michelle just isn’t going to run, so there’s that. I think the GOP is going to be nuked ash in 2028, so I think Harris will sail to victory, ceteris paribus (though things in life are rarely paribus).
Fuck no, this is lame defeatism. Harris is actually awesome, and she can win.
There is no reason to think that wouldn’t happen, is there?
She’s 59 and barely looks 45 (at least on teevee). She will be 63 this time four years from now with going on eight years of VP experience. That hardly seems too ancient for me.
I think the Dems might very well do a bait and switch. As the current in office bait is not very tasty. Michelle could be an attractive option to Dem voters. Even if she is not gung ho to do it, she can coast through at least one term with Obama and the permanent state doing all the work. But maybe she would really take it on in earnest.
I do not think Biden is going to be the actual candidate for the Dems. Some shenanigans will happen at some point.
As of Tuesday, Biden is the actual candidate for the Dems.
The last time “some shenanigans” happened at this point in the race we got Richard Nixon. Is that what you want?
So you don’t even want Michelle Obama - you want a puppet regime controlled by her husband. I can’t imagine that either of them would want that and I can’t imagine why you think Democrats would vote for that.
There are many ways Biden could be shifted out as candidate and someone else slipped in at the last moment. I did not say I did not want her. I actually said she may take on the job in earnest. Do not put words in my mouth nor twist my words.
She may also be just a figurehead as some other Presidents have been. But maybe not. I also did not say I wanted her to run or not, or a puppet regime. It is a possibility. Not what I want. Again, putting words in my mouth.
All of what you said is mostly just twisting what I said and attacking me. I did not say what I do or do not want. But what could happen. What the result might be is unknown. Michelle might do great if she happens to get the chance. I don’t think Biden will do any better than he is now. So you may take that as my saying I do not want Biden for another term.
Not unless you want Trump to win there aren’t. The time for an alternative candidate to start raising money, building a campaign organization, establishing a ground game etc. is about a year ago. There is simply no time for anyone else to build up the kind of campaign Biden is running right now.
So excellent, in other words.
“Vote for Michelle - who knows, she might even want the job!” isn’t really the best-sounding campaign slogan to me.
I think someone other than Biden might do better against Trump. Not sure who that might be. For recognition factor alone Michelle could be better. She has at least one experienced advisor.
Apparently that person isn’t sure either, because if they were, they’d have declared about a year and a half ago. Why do you think Biden’s only challengers were lunatic-fringe cranks?
A lot of Democratic voters would like an alternative to Biden. So their vote is already there for free, no major campaign funding required, if the person is considered better. The event of Biden being dropped and another being put in place will be a huge media story. Worth a billion or more in campaign funds itself.
Having read most of the thread I feel like I’ve come to understand a little bit better why the subject keeps coming up. It’s always kind of baffled me, I mean I think I understand the allure of Michelle Obama as a candidate. But the first thought I always have is why do we think she would even be a good president? She’s clearly and plainly stated numerous times that she has no interest in public office full stop. The idea brought up within the thread of thinking of it like a do-over does have a certain logic to it. But I just can’t shake the sense that while I know for a fact she is extremely intelligent and I have no doubt that she would surround herself with ethical, knowledgeable, serious advisors whom she would listen to there needs to still be a personality interested in what’s in front of them for those advisors to shape themselves around. I remember the school lunch nutrition thing, but other than that has she ever shown any sort of interest in serious policy initiatives aside from supporting Barack, or other Democrats? I can’t think of the top of my head of any.
All that said I do agree with the notion that a significant portion of this is coming from Republican strategists who see Michelle Obama as an easily demonized target. Almost exactly like Hillary? But black? I can see how that would make their racist little hearts skip a beat.