Centerfield

Today's date: December 12 2006

Posted by: C3 at December 12, 2006 02:24 PM

Precisely. 1500+ people showed up to see him in NH a year before the fun is even supposed to be begin. That's pretty amazing.

Posted by: bk at December 12, 2006 02:30 PM

hey!!!
Best Centrist Blog

where is Centerfield!!?? can i write in my vote??

Posted by: lurker at December 12, 2006 06:24 PM

Too late. Had to do that during the nominating period.

Posted by: Tully at December 12, 2006 07:59 PM

Trying to pick a person out of the crowd right now is like trying to pick the winner of a NASCAR race by using the pre-race warm up laps.

Obama has not had to get dirty yet. Just wait until members of his own party start to fling mud at him. He may be this elections Dean. Rockets off fast; but then comes back to Earth.

For all the flash, he is still unknown. Charisma can get you off the starting block. However, I think the voters may be a little more critical in their selection this time around.

I am not saying he can't do. I am just not about to call anyone the leader in the race on either side. Plus, as I said above, the campaign does not start until the first mud is flung.

Posted by: Jim M at December 12, 2006 10:16 PM

I think Brian is right on all accounts, but I would add that there is something there beyond the charisma. This guy's approach, although he is liberal on most issues, is classic centrist in the sense that he looks at problems, considers several options, and picks the best one. Read his book to get a better understanding of what I mean by this.

He's selling a tone and an attitude, and he seems to know intuitively that details are the turds in the punch bowl.

Again, right on the button. Furthermore, as I have argued on a number of occassions, details aren't neccesary for a leader to lead. What is important is to elect a President that will avoid immediately falling back on any one ideological position, focus on common interests, listen to ideas from both sides, and take action. THAT is how you unite people and bring them together toward a common purpose. Barack Obama is showing a willingness to do that, may be the only candidate that isn't going to be burned at the cross by his base for it, and therefore may be the right man at the right time. I am drinking the Kool-aid.

Trying to pick a person out of the crowd right now is like trying to pick the winner of a NASCAR race by using the pre-race warm up laps.

As Brian said, you don't have to pick Obama out of a crowd because the 'mania' factor is seperating him from the pack. Look for polls to prove this in a month or so.

Obama has not had to get dirty yet. Just wait until members of his own party start to fling mud at him... For all the flash, he is still unknown.

You make the argument yourself. What mud are they going to fling when he is uknown? He isn't experienced enough? It has been flung for going on a month and guess what, it isn't sticking. Furthermore, it is the perfect time for Obama to run because he is getting the name id without having to have years of a voting record to do it.

This isn't Howard Dean. His style isn't anywhere close to Dean's. He is way more disciplined than Dean. His approach is way more academic then Dean's. Howard Dean plummeted because he beat himself. I don't see Obama making the same mistake. My impression is that he is too smart for that. Yes, of course anything can happen. Yes, of course I can be wrong, but I have been listening to this guy, reading his books, and watching him in the press since his speech at the DNC. I don't see many holes.

Posted by: Mathew at December 12, 2006 11:03 PM

I think the trick is Obama is that he is virtually untouchable. I do not feel that the MSM, the blogs, or the punditry will feel comfortable criticizing him during the election cycle. He could easily end up being the least scrutinized presidental candidate ever.

In the end he is a great salesmen who selling the same old main stream Democratic agenda. When people actually look at his voting records, they are no different from virtually ever other Democratic Senator. There is not revolutionary ideas, he does not take positions contrary to the Democratic party and he never, ever discusses detailed positions.

He may talk about consensus and problem solving but my guess is that in the end his "consensus solutions" will come down to the tired, old boilerplate Democratic talking points that could be lifted directly from left of center e-mail listserver. The only different is that the packaging is much better than usual.

Posted by: superdestroyer at December 13, 2006 09:16 AM

Ahh; but he is going to have a voting ID. With Democrats in charge, he is going to have to place meaningful votes now. There are going to be some votes that he is going to have to make over the next year, in the sake of party, that could come bite him if he gets the nomination.

As fars as flinging the mud, it has not started. Spitballs are flying right now. Once we get closer to the start of the real primary season next year, the real mud will flow. Any good mud slinger knows you don't throw your big stuff now. There is too much time to shower off and get a clean set of clothes. You wait. Same reason why all hell breaks loose a month before the election. The real mud is being gathered and saved. Only a fool flings it now.

I am not discounting him. At the same time, I think it is too early to buy into the gleaming new car. Everything looks great on the showroom floor. The real key is what happens when you ask it to perform on the road.

The press loves him right now. However, they have shown time and time again that they love to eat their young when the real season starts. His main advantage right now could be competing in fund raising. He is a fresh face that the Democrats need. However, the change in power in Congress could have an effect on his voting.

Posted by: Jim M at December 13, 2006 09:21 AM

Jim, under most circumstances, I'd agree with that conventional wisdom. But my sense is that the dynamic is fundamentally different this time with this guy.

As Matthew rightly asks, where's the mud TO sling? The inexperience card IMO is not going to play all that effectively to the GP even if it persuades wonks and the very deliberative.

Obama seems poised to gather enough momentum to bar entry to all the other small wishful candidacies like say Vilsack's. How does a relative unknown like Vilsack build mo if he can't start early and have what little spotlight there is largely to himself? He faces a gigantic challenge.

Obama can capture too much spotlight for a steady but charisma-challenged guy like say Biden or Richardson to even get in. Gore and Kerry are IMO nonstarters. Wes Clark? Empty suit, IMO. Wasn't near ready for prime time. John Edwards? Two words: Gravitas deficit.

That leaves it down to Clinton and Obama. I think Clinton is formidable, but she faces two big obstacles. One, she has high residual negatives from Bill's reign. A substantial portion of the public won't coinsider voting for her. And two, she's got a problem with the left side of her base, which views her as too pro-war.

And WHO is going to sling the mud? Al Gore? Ted Kennedy? Joe Biden? John Kerry? Harr Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Anything bad they say is going to HELP Obama becuase they'll be struggling to find something bad to say. The smart democrats are investigating the price of early-adopter bandwagon seats right fricken now! But the big first sign to look for is pols saying that they think either Clinton or Obama would make fine presidential nominees. Then you'll know that the field has narrowed to 2 and it's too close for many pols to risk picking the wrong wagon.

At this very early stage, It's certainly appropriate to MAKE the comparison to Dean. But when I make it, I see that the biggest diffference is the most important one I'd want to see. Dean is a bomb-thrower and a loose cannon. He's glib, speaks off the cuff, and says dumb things when he's trying to preach to his choir. Obama is a far more skilled rhetorician than that. He understands that no matter what audience he is physically speaking to, in the 21st century he's potentially speaking to the whole world every time he speaks in public. And he chooses his words accordingly. He understands the 21st century rules of political engagment on an intuitive level.

But hey, what do I know? I said Kerry had no shot at winning the demnom because he was fundamentally unlikable guy congenitally unable to avoid trying to have it both ways on every issue who therefore came across as condescending, insincere, and self-serving. And yet he won the nomination.

Posted by: bk at December 13, 2006 09:34 AM

I think he has a great chance, but "great chance" doesn't equate to "certain victory" and- like everyone else right now- he's going to face a long uphill battle to get elected. His opponents (both Democrats in the primary and Republicans in the general election) are going to make an issue of his lack of political experience. The last Presidential nominee with this little political experience was Eisenhower, and of course he came in with a little bit more fanfare as an American hero than Obama, obvious charisma notwithstanding.

There's also the whole minority thing. Oh, I know, everyone will say that color and ethnicity don't matter when they go into the voting booth, but when those ballots are counted, we almost always see minorities perform worse than they poll. The truth is that we do still see color and ethnicity, including those who are minorities (we just do it the other way). And I say that as a full-blooded Latino.

Posted by: Bobby at December 13, 2006 09:39 AM

Since the door has been opened...

Not a handicap to the nomination, but it is still one when it comes to the national election: his race. I am going to get jumped big time for this; but there are still areas where a African-American Democrat is not going to win a state-wide race. I think there are some places the a African-American Republican could not win either. Granted, many of these states are not likely to go Democrat. However, it could have an effect in the swing states. A close race could easily be swung by that factor.

There, I said it. Before I get blasted, I could see myself voting for him in certain circumstances. I could not care less about race. However, as politically-incorrect as it may be, I don't think it can be swept under the rug as an issue. Racism is decreased; but it is also not as overt. I know my section of the country. I know discussions in private are sometimes still tinged with old prejudices. I would not be surprised to see a pocket racist percentage as high as 25-30% in some states. That is a significant block.

Truth be told, there is something about Obama. He is different from the other candidates right now. However, I think it is too early. After Presidents Bush's handling of foreign policy, if it is still a big issue in 2008, his lack of experience there could be a major negative. Being on the Foreign Relations committee will help. He may need to be as active as Hillary, though. I am a pragmatist when it comes to elections. Especially when there is no incumbent running. I give it a 50/50 shot that the true nominees of both parties are not even on the radar right now.

Posted by: Jim M at December 13, 2006 10:23 AM

The Obama phenonenum speaks to the populace's thirst for a leader they can trust. It's been awhile. So far he's managed to keep up that image. I don't agree with a lot of his positions, but he seems thoughtful and at least partially malleable. Personally I hope he is the real deal, but '08 is a long ways off and the tough stuff is ahead of him. Everybody has skeletons in their closet.

I don't deny that racism exists out there, but I disagree that it would make him unelectable. I don't think that most would care if he was pink and from Mars if they believed he could lead us out of this foriegn policy wasteland. Both Powell and Rice have done much of the paving on the road to having a black President.

Posted by: Dennis at December 13, 2006 11:04 AM

Here's how the thought process will work for those who might like Obama, say they've got no problem voting for a minority, but then won't vote for him anyway. It's not what you might call direct racism. They're perfectly willing to consider Obama as a decent, intelligent guy. What will stop them from voting for him is their fear of his appointments.

Even in the South, few people really have a problem with having ONE black neighbor. What they really fear is having TEN black neighbors, as soon as the first one arrives. And what they fear even with the first neighbor is not him (he's probably a doctor or lawyer or other professional), but his just-out-of-prison brother-in-law or other such unsuitable relatives who may move in with him "just till they get back on their feet". Next thing you know, in the minds of the white neighbors, there will be all-night hip-hop parties keeping the whole block awake.

Yes, Obama's biggest difficulty will be his interaction with the traditional "black leaders". He'll need support from the Rev. Jesse and Al Sharpton and Charlie Rangel and John Conyers; they have too much practical political power to ignore. But they come with a lot of negatives, and are generally perceived as being quite extreme. Obama must walk the tightrope. Keep them too close, and many moderates will be scared off. Keep them too far, and they won't activate their networks to really help him.

Posted by: PatHMV at December 13, 2006 11:14 AM

Look, we all want to live in a color blind society where no one sees race or ethnicity, but who among us believe we're truly there-- with the public, if not with the law? Pretending that Obama's race won't be a factor seems to me to be very native.

Now one can absolutely argue that it won't be a determining factor- that the states where it would exclude his victory are also states that a Democrat isn't going to win, anyway- but that's a different issue, and it does put him at something of a disadvantage relative to, say, Bill Clinton who was competitive even in many of the so-called Red States.

Obama's race is going to be an issue. But so was JFK's religion in 1960, and so will be Romney's religion in 2008. It doesn't mean JFK didn't still win, nor does it mean that Obama or Romney are doomed to lose. It's just one of many hurdles that all aspiring Presidential candidates have to clear.

Posted by: Bobby at December 13, 2006 12:24 PM

I don't have ANY problem with bringing up race. Only a fool would deny that it will factor into some folks decisions. As to how much we'll have to wait and see. Seems to me folks from the south are the ones suggesting that it's going to be more of an issue in the south. I'm only pointing that out to avoid getting tagged with being the one who brought it up. We have racists up here in Massachusetts, no doubt. [Sometimes they enjoy moving to Florida, though.... :-) ]

If it is indeed the case that it'll be more of an issue in the south (I think most of agree that if it is so, the extent is still debatable), it leads to the question of how many southern states Obama would need to carry to win the Presidency. Let's not overlook that many southern states have substantial black populations. How heavily will the black voters in these states favor Obama in their very first chance to elect a black President? 70%? 80%? 90%? Will it be enough to offset the greater numbers of white follks who won't vote for the democrat because he's black?

Mississippi is 36.5 black, Georgia is 29%, and Louisiana too. Texas? only 11%. Florida? Only 15%. Alabama is 26% black. Arkansas is only 15% and Kentucky is only 7% black. Missouri is only 11%. North Carolina? 21%. South Carolina? 28.5%. Virginia is 19%. West Virginia? only 3% !!! Tennessee 16%.

So even if Texas, Florida, WV, Kentucky, and a few others are off the table, you have to think that ultimately both turnout and true feeling are going to have a say in places like Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, and the Carolinas. And that in those same states, consider the fair number of blue-collar and working poor folks who might have racist feelings. In 2008, isn't it fair to wonder whether such folks might have trouble deciding against a charismtaic and compassionate democratic populist who's promising to butter their bread better than the last few guys?

Policy issues aside, it would be quite intersting to watch it unfold. Especially if we could use polls to get a state by state measure on the discrepancy between how folks say they will vote and how they actually do.

Posted by: bk at December 13, 2006 12:42 PM

Matthew;

classic centrist

That term implies there are some historical examples of centrism. I curious; such as...

As for Barak I still say it two years away. He's as exciting as Ed Muskie, Gary Hart, Jack Kemp...

For some interesting discussions regarding Obama check out Booker Rising. They've had many discussions re Barak and its surprising to see the mixed reviews. The issue I'm particularly intrigued by is "Is Sen Obama an African-American as we understand it?"

Anyway, the interest sure sells magazines and newspapers.

Posted by: c3 at December 13, 2006 02:56 PM

Chris, would you classify your comments more as doubts, outright poo-pooing, or skepticism? :-)

My sense is Obama is generating way more buzz than the guys you have mentioned.

I suppose it's inevitable that some black folks are eager to play is_he_black_enough? Such discussions are generally the same, using the nominal subject as a springboard for the real one: what ought to be regarded as culturally appropriate/authentic. But I feel pretty comfortable expecting that most blacks will decide Obama is black enough to vote for, should he be the nominee.

But you raise an interesting specter. Some rabble-rousing self-promoter might gain an awful lot of notoriety if he or she decided to run as "the real candidate for blacks." But only if that person isn't one of the tainted old guard of black politicians. IOW, Jackson or Sharpton can't do it. But a smart and articulate young fresh black face could have an opportunity to self-anoint, and grab some spotlight. I'll keep an eye out for it.

Posted by: bk at December 13, 2006 03:45 PM

His opponents (both Democrats in the primary and Republicans in the general election) are going to make an issue of his lack of political experience.

They'll also make much of the experience he does have. His record in the state legislature is notably leftist, and you can bet that will be trumpeted.

Posted by: Tully at December 13, 2006 04:35 PM

Tully, can't he just say that he was young and irresponsible? After all, it worked for GWB.

Posted by: bk at December 13, 2006 04:51 PM

I think he represents the new generation of black leadership pretty well. Jim's right, though - the detectives have probably barely started on him.

Spinning Obama as a leftie will largely work just with people who won't vote for any (D) no matter what, and yet somehow there was a President Clinton. Or if he fails to show appropriate leadership about issues, like Kerry (somehow, I doubt he has that particular problem, but we'll see).

Even neglecting race, another potential problem for him in the South is that alot more Southerners are likely to be more comfortable with Hillary just for cultural reasons.

Posted by: Jon Kay at December 13, 2006 05:19 PM

McCain just lost my potential vote, no matter what he does between now and 11/08.

A requirement to report on each other seems pretty KGB-esque to me.

Posted by: Jon Kay at December 13, 2006 05:27 PM

I think McCain lost a lot of people's votes. He was not maverick or independent enough to wean himself from voting along with the GOP majority on just about everything.

Against Gore, he'd lose. All Al has to do is point to the Clinton/Gore administration record regarding the size of government, fiscal accountability and responsibility, the use of the military, etc. vs McCain voting record the past 6 years - deficits, a military that has lost a lot of its readiness, and no accountability when it comes to spending the federal dollar. Against Obama, McCain probably lose too - on age, on politics and even on his record. Clinton - I'd rather she stay senator, she'd be much more effective as such for the next 8 years.
Kerry, don't count him out yet.

Posted by: Marcus at December 14, 2006 01:13 AM

Marcus, you might want to check out the polls in the link I provided in the post below.

If these polls have any validity, then Kerry and Gore are total non-starters.

Now I don't count Kerry out from running, only winning. He is just the sort to need a direct slap in the face to wake up and smell the dislike. He may need to start a campaign, run, and then get single digits in the first 3 or 4 primaries. But he's yesterday's news. IMO, Gore has the same loser's stank on him. Hillary was winner's stank, from Bill, and from her successful campaigns. Obama has winner's stank too.

Posted by: bk at December 14, 2006 09:00 AM

I am so surprised so many people say they do not know his positions on things. He has a whole book outlining his positions and his ideas on addressing problems facing the country. It's on the bestseller list.
That is an excuse.
He is an open book if people would just look.
As an illinois resident I suppose I know more about him as he ran 2 years ago.

Posted by: vwcat at December 14, 2006 09:35 AM

I am so surprised so many people say they do not know his positions on things. He has a whole book...

How many copies has it sold? Bestseller is a relative term. And how many people actually read it after buying it? I mean, they did a poll and lots of folks said they had no specific ideas they associated with him. You're surprised....

But consider the following–what sort of results do you suppose pollsters would have gotten if they had asked all these same folks:

"When was the last time you read a 200+ page non-fiction book just out of curiosity?"

How many folks would you expect to have answered "within the last 3 months?" 10%? 2% 0.05%?

Posted by: bk at December 14, 2006 10:28 AM

Brina;

Chris, would you classify your comments more as doubts, outright poo-pooing, or skepticism? :-)

I just too many "hot" candidate rise up long before the primaries. It's like the preseason college football rankings.

Marcus;

Kerry, don't count him out yet.

Puhhleese. The fork was stuck in John Kerry after his remark about going to Iraq if you don't go to college. As much as I wrestled with my '04 Presidential vote then and since regarding GWB I feel sure about my doubts about John Kerry.... No... let me change that, I'm 10x more certain about John Kerry and the answer is still "no"

Posted by: c3 at December 14, 2006 04:43 PM