Centerfield

...and I'm Jerry Cougar Mellancamp.

Don't underestimate the importance of being earnest. People like the guy. He's charismatic, and hopeful, and has a pretty forthright manner. He's intelligent without being overbearing or pedantic, and he's moderate enough in what he chooses for his popular rhetoric to appeal to a wide range of people.

All that means he has a very good chance, should he decide to run. IMO, his "lack of experience" is not going to work much against him. Instead, I think it will work FOR him, in the sense that his relatively youthful fresh appeal will make him MORE attractive.

I expect it will be a hard sell for anyone among the known candidates who run against him to make the "lack of experience"
argument. Obama has too good of a counter-argument available, which is that folks like Kerry, Gore, and whoever can be associated with GW Bush (Republican X) have their experience with failure, with failed ideas that didn't work. I think the forecast calls for good selling for the young fresh guy who seems hopeful, thoughtful, and most of all, earnest.

addendum: Obama seems to me to be especially good at avoiding specifics and getting bogged down in details. This is going to drive both side's wonks quite crazy. There will be blizzards of blog posts that go "he sure talks purty, but...." That's not going to matter to the general public.

Posted by: bk at November 29, 2006 09:34 AM

So f'ing what?? Did you pick out your middle name or did your parents?? Do you really think Obama's parents even knew who Saddam Hussein was 45 years ago?? You're an idiot if you think this makes any difference. Strike that, you're a childish idiot for even bringing it up!!

Posted by: ascap_scab at November 29, 2006 09:39 AM

Dude, it's pretty obvious that Oberon is just kidding around. That said, just so everyone is tracking, the name "Hussein" did not originate with Saddam Hussein.

Husayn ibn Ali, whom most Muslims named Hussein are named after, was the grandson of Muhammed and the son of Fatima (Muhammed's daughter) and Imam Ali. His death pretty much marks the beginning of the schism between Shi'a and Sunni-- basically, he was passed over for Caliph by someone who was not of Muhammed's bloodline (Ahl al-Bayht), and those who believed he was the rightful heir to the Prophet's traditions ralled around him and challenged the Caliphate. In the Battle of Karbala (just a few miles from where I now work), Hussein's people made a desperate (and ultimately unsuccessful) stand agianst Yazid (the new Caliph's) far superior forces. They were defeated, and he was killed, but those that continued to believe that he should have been the spiritual and political leader of Islam came to be the Shi'a; those who supported Yazid became the Sunnis.

Every year, Karbala receives roughly 6 million pilgrims, tourists, and visitors to the Shrine of Husayn, the largest festival culminating in the Ashura, which is a very emotional event for the Shi'ites-- men and women alike cry and mourn that the Caliph killed Husayn in a manner and with an emotional fervor that Westerners probably couldn't begin to fathom.

Just a little history lesson...

Posted by: Bobby at November 29, 2006 11:04 AM

Yeah Oberon, I hope you delete the "childish idiot" remark from the jackass that previously commented, but I DO hope you were joking. That kind of a comment is exactly why an Obama candidacy is appealing to at least me.

What Brian said. Furthermore, I am of the rare opinion that experience, while valuable, doesn't neccesarily mean you are any good. Obama's got the brains, there is no question about it. I like him, although I have been critical of some his actions, because he seems to have a grasp of the bigger picture and the vision to do so something about it without getting stuck in ideology. Furthermore, I think the fresh approach idea, while lacking details as BK pointed out, makes a lot of sense. Americans are bored with the same ole' group of pols and Barack may be the only candidate that can argue he is coming into the job and can be a new set of eyes.

I have no doubt President Barack Obama would have the right people around him and the capability to make good decisions like, and I think the comparison is valid, a President John F. Kennedy.

I am evaluating candidates based on four criterion:

1. They have to show me they can be a strong executive (experience may matter).
2. They have to show me they can take steps to bring the country together (experience doesn't matter).
3. They have to show me some intellectual weight.
4. I have to agree with them more then I disagree.

Obama is weakest on number 1, but I think he may be the best candidate regarding number 2 and 3, and number 4 is just about anybody accept Sam Brownback and Mitt Romney.

Posted by: Mathew at November 29, 2006 11:17 AM

Oberon may be kidding, to the extent that he is addressing the kind of people who read this site: people interested in, and at least somewhat knowledgeable of, politics and government. But that is a rather different demographic than likely voters in a general election for President.

However unfortunate it may (or may not) be, evidence over the last century suggests that executive experience makes a big difference when it comes to winning a Presidential election. Not an absolute determinant -- few things are. But it can make a big hurdle to overcome, IF the other major candidate for President does have that kind of experience. The candidate might be up against someone as unappealing as Nixon . . . but is that the way to bet?

Of course, we are talking about who would have the best chance to be a successful candidate. Who would make a good President is an almost completely separate discussion -- and confusing the two is a good way to lose an election.

Posted by: wj at November 29, 2006 11:45 AM

Ouch.... and I thought my cousin, Morris, got a raw deal!

Not to sound overly cyncical but names do actually matter (Just ask Marion Morrison.... er John Wayne). They SHOULDN'T but then again they shouldn't have to put up a second fence at the zoo to keep people from trying to pet the tigers.

Posted by: cengel at November 29, 2006 12:19 PM

"Doomed" is a bit of an exaggeration, but the basic truth is that if you're running for office, a foreign-sounding name is usually a negative. If you want to be president and your middle name is "Hussein," you've got a real problem.

The Republican operatives will be overjoyed if Dems nominate a guy named Hussein for president.

Posted by: Oberon at November 29, 2006 12:27 PM

The republican operatives will be overjoyed if Dems nominate a guy named Hussein for president.

Not if he's trouncing the GOP's likely nominee in the polls, they won't. Obama, IMO, has the hardest time with a guy like Guiliani. I think he has a better shot against McCain because of the age issue.

Against Romney, I got no feel. A Romney-Obama match-up might return the dynamic to "get out your base." Romney has been invoking Reagan in his speeches, trying to sell a "let's get back to morning in Americas with the dear old Ronny brand." I think Romney is pretty smart there. He wants GOP folks to pick the nominee on the basis of who's most like Reagan. Romney does a nice dance on this count, speaking with more detail and frankness in courting the pro-bidness, small-gov fin cons, while saying nice but vague things to so-cons. Romney knows the socons are important to a GOP win but he knows that if they get too much spotlight they become a liability.

Democrats are eager to invoke JFK in Obama. The mythological Reagan against mythological JFK would be a battle royale, no?

Posted by: bk at November 29, 2006 12:57 PM

Sad to say, but I bet the majority of voters who wouldn't vote for him because of a middle name of Hussein would likely not vote for him because of the hue of his skin.

Posted by: c3 at November 29, 2006 02:23 PM

Well, and the other things is that, historically-speaking (and as Harold Ford just learned), polls usually overstate the amount of support that ethnic minority candidates usually receive on election day. As it happens, people are far more willing to tell pollsters that they'll vote for a minority candidate than they really are when they get inside the voter booth. Obama needs to have a really comfortable lead in the polls before he can be comfortable, if you ask me. Not that anyone would.

Posted by: Bobby at November 29, 2006 03:12 PM

Good point Chris. And that's a point that as a general form, come ups often enough that we ought to give it some sort of clever name. Maybe something to do with how a probability can't be less than zero.

The Further Alienation Postulate of political attraction reminds bloggers and others that the probability P that voter A from demographic subset n will support candidate X must be a number between 0 and 1. When P(a_sub n) of X is already less than say 0.1, it's no longer worth remarking upon subsequent data which comes to light suggesting that P(a_sub n) of X may decrease further, since the probability is already negligible.

Posted by: bk at November 29, 2006 03:22 PM

The Further Alienation Postulate of political attraction reminds bloggers and others that the probability P that voter A from demographic subset n will support candidate X must be a number between 0 and 1. When P(a_sub n) of X is already less than say 0.1, it's no longer worth remarking upon subsequent data which comes to light suggesting that P(a_sub n) of X may decrease further, since the probability is already negligible.

Uhh.. yah... sure....Now they told me there would be no math on this blog (and no econometrics either!) Posted by: c3 at November 29, 2006 05:45 PM

I like Senator Obama alot but very few incumbent Senators reach the Oval Office. Only two U.S. Senators in American history went straight from the Senate to the Oval Office - Warren Harding, the first Bapitist elected President in 1920; and John Kennedy, the first and only Roman Catholic elected President in 1960. Both men had weak legislative histories, and both had personal lifestyles that were less than sterling.

Obama may have history on his side if he choices to run for the Presidency but at this junction in his young political life he would make a good choice for the VP spot.

Actually the Vice-Presidency seems to be the road most Senators travel before landing in the Oval Office. Dan Quayle, Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Harry Truman all went from the Senate to Vice-Presidency before being elected Presidents, except Qualye, Mondale and Humphrey.

Obama's time will come but it is not 2008. If he has any ideas about running in 2008 all he has to do is use John Edwards, a former Senator, as a case study. Unlike Edwards, Obama should build a reputation not a resume, and be careful not to be a quick burn like Edwards. Time is on Obama side let his fellow Democrat Senate stallmates practice the sport of bloodletting leaving him to build his reputation - Senators Harding and Kennedy bear that historical fact out.

Danny L. McDaniel
lafayette, Indiana

Posted by: Danny L. McDaniel at December 2, 2006 01:49 PM

I don't think Edwards lost due to lack of experience, I think it was an issue of demeanor. Edwards had a young and lightweight feel. He was not forceful and lacked gravitas.

I think Obama passes the gravitas test that Edwards fails. It's a feel thing more than anything else.

Posted by: bk at December 4, 2006 09:49 AM