'06 '08

Barack Obama admitted last week that he was considering making a run for the white house in 2008. It's ordinary for Obama to consider this, it's extraordinary for him to admit this. I know, I know, the booksales. But I have to think he's written the book as much to position himself for a run as he has for the money.



While there are plenty of other credible Dems sniffing around the '08 trough, Obama does make for an intriguing candidate. He's a genuine star without all the negatives of Hillary. He was consistently opposed to the Iraq war. And, as he has argued, he offers a break from the baby boomer grudge matches that have held politics captive for two decades. Re-litigating the sixties - I believe that's how he puts it.

While I am bullish on Edwards, and think that Biden and Clark are tops when it comes to national security/foreign policy, Obama appears the most promising at this very early stage (almost a pre-stage) of sussing out the talent for '08.

While Obama's experience is an issue, I am not being cute when I say that Senate experience is less than crucial to both a candidate and a chief executive. If Obama runs in '08, he will have almost the exact same amount of experience as FDR had in 1932. FDR had been govenor for 4 years, secretary of the navy for 4 years, and state senator for 2 years. Obama will have been senator for 4 years, and a state senator for 7 years.

I think it's Obama's moment, and he'd better strike. I don't understand the downside. If he falls, he can try again - John McCain, anyone? I think the bigger risk is in letting the moment pass, as Mario Cuomo and Bill Bradley managed to do in 1992. Bradley felt ready in 2000, but people had moved on.

And he's speaking my language on Iraq:

"I thought this whole venture was, was poorly conceived. Not just poorly executed, but poorly conceived. I think it was a mistake for us to go in. I felt that once we had gone in, it made sense for us to try to make the best of the situation.

What we’ve seen is such a rapid deterioration of the situation. There was an article in The New York Times on Saturday where the government isn’t even venturing into some neighborhoods in Baghdad to pick up bodies. And the—a Iraqi was quoted as saying, “If a government can’t come to pick up the bodies because it’s too afraid, is it really a government?” And I think that’s the question that we have to ask ourselves right now.

There are no good options in Iraq. There are bad options and worse options." -Meet the Press

He went on to say flatly - no equivocations, that we should begin a phased withdrawal by the end of 2006, maybe sooner.

This - plus his personal candor - bodes well for a pol who has appeared almost too cautious in his first 2yrs in the senate. On his personal candor, we turn to a sit down he had with New Yorker editor David Remnick:

"Oh, look, you know, when I was a kid, I inhaled. Frequently. That was the point."

In the same sit down, he could be off the cuff eloquent:

"You go to a little farm community, and somebody’s concerned about Darfur, or you go to—I write about going to a South Side church with a whole black inner-city congregation and somebody asks you about farm policy, and what you realize is that, in fits and starts, and very imperfectly, when the country is engaged we really do have the best form of government yet conceived."

Enough on Obama and '08. What's going to happen next Tuesday?

My prediction: Dems take House, fall just short in Senate. The only surprise for me would be if 1) Republicans win the House 2) Dems win the Senate 3) Dems win the House by extremely large margins.

Of the big three Senate races - Missouri, Virginia, Tennesee - which will swing Democrat? Any?

Will the Dems hold on to New Jersey and Maryland? The most recent polls suggest they will, but the Republicans probably have the better candidates in these races, so it's hard to say.

Beyond Iraq, Foley, the debt, etc, the Dems have done a few basic things well. The first that comes to mind is fighting back. Dems haven't been this feisty since '92. They attack, and respond to attacks quickly. They actually have swagger, and on national security to boot.

The second factor is the strong recruiting jobs done by Emmanuel and Schumer. Menendez and Cardin notwithstanding, most of the candidates in the competitive races really fit the profile of their districts/states. I'm glad that Schumer and Emmanuel have dropped the checkbox/litmus style of recruiting candidates. They have moderate and even conservative Dems running in the South and West. These candidates may be more right wing than me, but it's important to get as big a tent as possible - guys like me are already voting Dem.

Oh, and those stories running everywhere in the last 48 hours about Rove single handedly pulling this election off through optimism, genius, and GOTV? (You have your math, I have the math) Well, I think Josh Marshall has his number:

"The answer is really, really simple: nothing. There's not anything he knows. In fact, he's not even confident. It's a bluff.

It's the bandwagon effect. Psyche out the other side. Act like you're winning and you'll charge up your activists/voters and demoralize the folks on the other side. Mainly, get the press to believe your hype and they'll do the charging up and demoralizing for you.

So my point is not to make anyone think this is all in the bag. It's not. It is only to get people to finally drop out of the Rove (anti-)cult and realize he's seeing the same thing everyone else is seeing. He's just putting on a game face because that's what he needs to do to do his job."