Win-Win If He Runs

[Barry]

www.realclearpolitics.com
October 27, 2006
Obama Can Win by Losing
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- When just a week ago Barack Obama showed a bit of ankle and declared the mere possibility of his running for the presidency, the chattering classes swooned. Now that every columnist in the country has given him advice, here's mine: He should run in '08. He will lose in '08. And the loss will put him irrevocably on a path to the presidency.

Obama's political challenge is to turn his current fame and sizzle, which will undoubtedly dissipate, into something concrete. In physics, it's the problem of converting kinetic energy into potential energy: Use the rocket fuel behind his current popularity to propel him to a higher national plane from which he would eventually move almost laterally to the presidency.

The reasons for running are clear.

First, at a time of ideological weariness, he has the persona: an affecting personal history, fine intelligence, remarkable articulateness and refreshing charm.

Second, this is a uniquely open race. Not since 1952 has there been a presidential election with no incumbent president or vice president running. Right now, there is no serious challenger to Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. The Democrats' quadrennial great white hope -- the young attractive Southern governor in the mode of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton -- was going to be Mark Warner, former governor of Virginia. Warner has bowed out.

Third, the country hungers for a black president. Not all the country, but enough that, on balance, race would be an asset. It is no accident that when, a decade ago, another attractive, articulate African-American with no experience in electoral office went on a book tour, he was met not just with rock star adulation but with a loud national chorus urging him to run for the presidency.

The object of affection then was Colin Powell. Today it is Obama. Race is only one element in their popularity, but an important one. A historic one. Like many Americans, I long to see an African-American ascend to the presidency. It would be an event of profound significance, a great milestone in the unfolding story of African-Americans achieving their rightful, long-delayed place in American life.

Of course there is racism in America. Call me naive, but I believe that just as Joe Lieberman was a net positive for the Democrats in 2000 -- more people were attracted to him as a man of faith than were turned away because of anti-Semitism -- there are more Americans who would take special pride in a black president than are those who would reject one because of racism.

These are strong reasons for Obama to run. Nonetheless, he will not win. The reason is 9/11. The country will simply not elect a novice in wartime.

During our last great war, the Cold War, no foreign policy novice won the presidency, except for Carter in the anomalous Watergate election of 1976. The only foreign policy novices elected in the last half-century -- Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- won the presidency during our holiday from history between the fall of the Soviet Union and 9/11.

In any circumstance, it is fairly audacious for any freshman senator to even think of the presidency. When freshman Sen. John F. Kennedy began his preparation for 1956, he was really seeking the vice presidency. And, unlike Obama, he had already served three terms in the House, which in turn had followed a celebrated military tour in the Pacific in World War II.

In 1956, Kennedy was preparing for a serious presidential run in 1960. Obama should be thinking ahead as well -- using '08 to cure his problem of inexperience. Run for the Democratic nomination and lose. He only has to do reasonably well in the primaries to become such a compelling national figure as to be invited onto the ticket as vice presidential nominee. If John Edwards, the runner-up in '04 did well enough to be made running mate, a moderately successful Obama would be the natural choice for '08.

Then, if the Democrats win, he will have all the foreign policy credentials he needs for life. Even if the ticket loses, assuming he acquits himself reasonably well, he immediately becomes the presumptive front-runner in the next presidential cycle. And if by some miracle he hits the lottery and wins in '08, well, then it is win-win-win.

He's a young man with a future. But the future recedes. He needs to run now. And lose. And win by losing.

[jbuck919]

Krauthammer should be subjected to random urine testing.

An aspect of this upcoming campaign that no one seems to have addressed is the oddness of, not availability of candidtates, but unwillingness of same. But it is not the first time in US history that there have appeared to be no viable willing candidates. If you think about it, it is a reasonable scenario. Modern presidential campaigns are torture, among other things.

The idea of drafting a candidate, along with the idea of a dark horse, goes back a long way. Ralph and I agree that George Pataki is not presidential material, and of course he is a Republican to boot, but who is to say that if he or Romney gets in through the back door he might not surprise us all? It's happened plenty of times before. (Of course, if you consider Warren G. Harding, it could go the other way, too.)

[karlhenning]

I make it a practice not to consider Warren G. Harding :-)

[Lilith]

Krauthammer is a fossiland he thinks like a fossil and I can prove that.
Every now and then Pizza throws one of his articles in the mix, which he believes helps support his position. Fossils one and all

[Barry]

Krauthammer is a fossiland he thinks like a fossil and I can prove that.
Every now and then Pizza throws one of his articles in the mix, which he believes helps support his position. Fossils one and all

Nice, in depth analysis of the subject there.

Krauthammer has had some nice columns lately. He's one of a number of people who I think are wisely calling for the US to unleash Japan and encourage it to beef up it's military so we can have a strong ally in that region and not have to maintain forces there.

[Haydnseek]

Krauthammer should be subjected to random urine testing.

An aspect of this upcoming campaign that no one seems to have addressed is the oddness of, not availability of candidtates, but unwillingness of same. But it is not the first time in US history that there have appeared to be no viable willing candidates. If you think about it, it is a reasonable scenario. Modern presidential campaigns are torture, among other things.

The idea of drafting a candidate, along with the idea of a dark horse, goes back a long way. Ralph and I agree that George Pataki is not presidential material, and of course he is a Republican to boot, but who is to say that if he or Romney gets in through the back door he might not surprise us all? It's happened plenty of times before. (Of course, if you consider Warren G. Harding, it could go the other way, too.)

Krauthammer and many others are writing about Senator Obama's chances of becoming President because he said he was thinking about running in 2008 recently on "Meet the Press."

[Modernistfan]

For him to say that Lieberman was a net plus for the Democrats indicates that he does not analyze thoroughly. In fact, it is likely that Lieberman's presence on the ticket probably cost the Democrats West Virginia and Tennessee, and possibly Arkansas as well. West Virginia generally leans Democratic, at least in reasonably competitive national elections, and Tennessee was Gore's home state. Yet the Democrats lost both states, as well as Arkansas. What those states had in common is that they are filled with rural fundamentalist Christians that tend to see Jews as the spawn of the Devil, "man of faith" or not. (In that, they are to be differentiated from fundamentalist Christians in cities, suburbs, or exurbs, who have considerably more contact with Jews in their daily lives and probably are not so quick to make such judgments.) In general, such voters will not admit their prejudice to pollsters, but the pollsters did pick up some signals. The disaffection of such voters was attributed to the the dislike of these voters for the Monica Lewinsky shenanigans, notwithstanding the fact that Lieberman was one of the strongest critics of said shenanigans.

Sad--but true given the present mindset of far too many Americans. An African-American candidate probably would fare even worse.

[Lilith]

Am I really suppose to come up with a serious response to a writer who supported Bush and the Iraqi war & Republicans (and STILL DOES- how amazing is that)
and now offers the expected criticism of a Democratic Senator thinking of a White House Run. Compare Obama to Bush - he's brighter, he speaks better, he knows that issues aren't always 'black and white'...I mean, what more could you ask for compared to Bush.
Is that serious enough Barry? Did I really have to spell it out?

[Barry]

Am I really suppose to come up with a serious response to a writer who supported Bush and the Iraqi war & Republicans (and STILL DOES- how amazing is that)
and now offers the expected criticism of a Democratic Senator thinking of a White House Run. Compare Obama to Bush - he's brighter, he speaks better, he knows that issues aren't always 'black and white'...I mean, what more could you ask for compared to Bush.
Is that serious enough Barry? Did I really have to spell it out?

Criticism? I should have guessed you didn't even read the piece.

[Lilith]

"He's a young man with a future. But the future recedes. He needs to run now. And lose. And win by losing"
-----------------------------------

Well, you guessed wrong- the piece is an attempt to put the candidate down. It doesn't fool me one bit. It reads like something out of the Rove/ Cheney/ Bush White House. Oh.....was it?

[Barry]

Talk about paranoia .

[Corlyss_D]

Criticism? I should have guessed you didn't even read the piece.

Knowledge might compromise the purity of her feelings about Krauthammer.

Re: Obama running. If he's so smart, he can't be that dumb. He doesn't even have Clinton or Carter's bona fides.

[RebLem]

Criticism? I should have guessed you didn't even read the piece.

Knowledge might compromise the purity of her feelings about Krauthammer.

Re: Obama running. If he's so smart, he can't be that dumb. He doesn't even have Clinton or Carter's bona fides.

I generally don't like Krauthammer. Too conservative for me. But I agree in general with this article.

Corlyss, notice Krauthammer isn't saying Obama has what it takes to go all the way in 2008. He thinks Obama will lose the attempt to become the party's nominee. But lots of folks make a trial run once and either get the second spot on the ticket or use it as a test to make a real run 4 to 8 years later. If he doesn't run, time's a wasting. For one thing, Eliot Spitzer is coming up fast. And there are 38 governor's races up this year. NY isn't the only one, and Republicans are expected to lose lots of them. No telling who besides Eliot Spitzer will be appearing on the horizon for 2012 or 2016. It is quite rational for Obama to think that 2008 is the year to make at least a first move.

[Corlyss_D]

Criticism? I should have guessed you didn't even read the piece.

Knowledge might compromise the purity of her feelings about Krauthammer.

Re: Obama running. If he's so smart, he can't be that dumb. He doesn't even have Clinton or Carter's bona fides.

I generally don't like Krauthammer. Too conservative for me. But I agree in general with this article.

Corlyss, notice Krauthammer isn't saying Obama has what it takes to go all the way in 2008. He thinks Obama will lose the attempt to become the party's nominee. But lots of folks make a trial run once and either get the second spot on the ticket or use it as a test to make a real run 4 to 8 years later.

I know, Reb. Name one in the last 40 years who's actually made it from failed test run to president. Politics today is not what it was in 1956. Between expense and oppo research, I don't think it is possible for people to come back winners after trying and losing in the national arena. St. John the McCain may be the first to do it since Kennedy, assuming that he actually gets the nomination. Americans have to get over this obsession with know-nothing outsiders as the answer to messy but effective politicians.

[Barry]

I know, Reb. Name one in the last 40 years who's actually made it from failed test run to president. Politics today is not what it was in 1956. Between expense and oppo research, I don't think it is possible for people to come back winners after trying and losing in the national arena. St. John the McCain may be the first to do it since Kennedy, assuming that he actually gets the nomination. Americans have to get over this obsession with know-nothing outsiders as the answer to messy but effective politicians.

Reagan

[Corlyss_D]

I know, Reb. Name one in the last 40 years who's actually made it from failed test run to president. Politics today is not what it was in 1956. Between expense and oppo research, I don't think it is possible for people to come back winners after trying and losing in the national arena. St. John the McCain may be the first to do it since Kennedy, assuming that he actually gets the nomination. Americans have to get over this obsession with know-nothing outsiders as the answer to messy but effective politicians.

Reagan

Okay. One, who had far more bona fides in 1976 than Obama does now or will have in 08 or 12.

[jbuck919]

St. John the McCain may be the first to do it since Kennedy, assuming that he actually gets the nomination.

Assuming he actually wants it. My previous post may have sounded off to the side, but we are looking at a campaign where both parties might have to draft a candidate.

[RebLem]

I know, Reb. Name one in the last 40 years who's actually made it from failed test run to president. Politics today is not what it was in 1956. Between expense and oppo research, I don't think it is possible for people to come back winners after trying and losing in the national arena. St. John the McCain may be the first to do it since Kennedy, assuming that he actually gets the nomination. Americans have to get over this obsession with know-nothing outsiders as the answer to messy but effective politicians.

Reagan

And George Herbert Walker Bush, who ran in the primaries in 1980, did well enough to get picked as VP by Reagan, and then got to the presidency on his own in 1988.

[Corlyss_D]

I know, Reb. Name one in the last 40 years who's actually made it from failed test run to president. Politics today is not what it was in 1956. Between expense and oppo research, I don't think it is possible for people to come back winners after trying and losing in the national arena. St. John the McCain may be the first to do it since Kennedy, assuming that he actually gets the nomination. Americans have to get over this obsession with know-nothing outsiders as the answer to messy but effective politicians.

Reagan

And George Herbert Walker Bush, who ran in the primaries in 1980, did well enough to get picked as VP by Reagan, and then got to the presidency on his own in 1988.

It wasn't Bush's showing in the primaries that got him his spot on Reagan's ticket. Reagan wanted James Baker and taking Bush was the only way to get him.

[Alberich]

Okay. One, who had far more bona fides in 1976 than Obama does now or will have in 08 or 12.

Bona fides? Since when do bona fides mean anything?
Here is being discussed the possible Presidential
campaign of a person who has, what?, two years'
experience in national government? Two years?
And he is being touted as Presidential material?
Forget bona fides Ms. Corlyss.
It's all about photogenics, popularity,
media hype, a cynical and dumbed-down
electorate, bashing your opponent instead
of promoting your own platform, and on and
on.
Bona fides? Toss 'em out the window.

[jbuck919]

Very odd how this thread has turned. George H.W. Bush was on paper the most qualified man in the 20th century to be president in terms of his resume. Go back a century and Abraham Lincoln had never been anything but a one-term congressman.

[Werner]

An interesting note, John.

But then, look how we got our current incumbent.

[jbuck919]

An interesting note, John.

But then, look how we got our current incumbent.

Well, state governorships have always been a segue to the presidency. I would not even know how to begin the list, except that it includes both Roosevelts and goes back as far as Thomas Jefferson. John Adams was never governor of Massachussetts (John Hancock was), but he did write that state's constitution, which still prevails.

Our current president cannot be blamed because he was in the lineage of men who go back to Sam Houston, the only man to be governor of two states (the other was Tennessee). He can be blamed for a lot of things, but not that.

[Corlyss_D]

Okay. One, who had far more bona fides in 1976 than Obama does now or will have in 08 or 12.

Bona fides? Since when do bona fides mean anything?
Here is being discussed the possible Presidential
campaign of a person who has, what?, two years'
experience in national government? Two years?
And he is being touted as Presidential material?
Forget bona fides Ms. Corlyss.
It's all about photogenics, popularity,
media hype, a cynical and dumbed-down
electorate, bashing your opponent instead
of promoting your own platform, and on and
on.
Bona fides? Toss 'em out the window.

I sympathize with your dismay, but bona fides do mean something. Americans like governors and generals to run the country. The number of times a VP has succeeded a president just because he was a VP is about the same number of times Americans have elected a lip-diddling blow-hard directly from that cesspool of ineffectual pompous asses, the Senate. Americans like some evidence that the candidate knows how to run a big operation, like a state or a war. Obama brings nothing to the table except his genial personality and his race. I don't think that would be lost on the public, certainly not the 37% that self-identifies as conservative.

[Corlyss_D]

Very odd how this thread has turned. George H.W. Bush was on paper the most qualified man in the 20th century to be president in terms of his resume.

Yeah, and he turned out to be the true amiable dunce. He like Clinton wanted to be president but had no idea why, i.e., he brought no greater public purpose to the task.

[Madame]

I sympathize with your dismay, but bona fides do mean something. Americans like governors and generals to run the country. The number of times a VP has succeeded a president just because he was a VP is about the same number of times Americans have elected a lip-diddling blow-hard directly from that cesspool of ineffectual pompous asses, the Senate. Americans like some evidence that the candidate knows how to run a big operation, like a state or a war. Obama brings nothing to the table except his genial personality and his race. I don't think that would be lost on the public, certainly not the 37% that self-identifies as conservative.

I feel like I've tuned into a horse handicapping exercise

I think you can throw all the stats out the window, if you are referring to what AMERICANS want. Now, AMERICANS and POLITICAL PARTIES aren't necessarily one and the same. Americans get to choose between two candidates nominated by the party, and recent grumblings have been that they haven't been happy with either choice.

Right now, Americans are looking for someone they can trust, and he is giving them a new message, he's addressing exactly what has happened in today's harshly divisive arena and how it has hurt the country. I don't think you can reduce Obama to simply a genial personality and black in terms of what he could bring to the table. (I think being black is less and less relevant, and particularly in his case, he's not stumping that way.) I think his greatest handicap is that the old-school Dems know he'll be a hard dog to keep under the porch if he gets elected. And of course they are stupid enough to let that sway them, and once again the public will be given a choice they probably won't get too excited about. (Gee, with the new voting machines with no paper trail, will voters be able to write in candidates? )

[Corlyss_D]

I think you can throw all the stats out the window, if you are referring to what AMERICANS want. Now, AMERICANS and POLITICAL PARTIES aren't necessarily one and the same. Americans get to choose between two candidates nominated by the party, and recent grumblings have been that they haven't been happy with either choice.

Well, history has certainly proven that Americans vote for some and not others, and that the some have particular characteristics that the others lack. Those characteristics are ex-governor or ex-general or both. To divorce the public from the parties is fatuous sophistry. If the primary system delivers up candidates that the public won't tolerate, at the very least, the solution is for the public to get involved in the primaries. But they don't. Hell they don't even get out to vote. That doesn't spell hostility to the results so much as indifference because there's not really that much difference between the two parties.

Right now, Americans are looking for someone they can trust, and he is giving them a new message, he's addressing exactly what has happened in today's harshly divisive arena and how it has hurt the country.

"New message" me arse. Americans right now are not paying attention to 08 - they are scarcely paying attention to 06. It's the media that swoons over Obama and we pretty much know what the media like: fresh meat that tells them what they want to hear.

(I think being black is less and less relevant)

Agreed, but for novelty factor, it's hard to beat. I saw similar slobbering over Doug Wilder in Virginia.

I think his greatest handicap is that the old-school Dems know he'll be a hard dog to keep under the porch if he gets elected.

Um ah just what is your factual basis for that assessment? What in his microscopic 2 year career thus far has demonstrated any striking departure from Democratic orthodoxy? Granted, he's not as strident in his statements as the old bulls and presidential wannabes, but he votes is just like he's been told to vote: straight party line.

[Madame]

Right now, Americans are looking for someone they can trust, and he is giving them a new message, he's addressing exactly what has happened in today's harshly divisive arena and how it has hurt the country.

"New message" me arse. Americans right now are not paying attention to 08 - they are scarcely paying attention to 06. It's the media that swoons over Obama and we pretty much know what the media like: fresh meat that tells them what they want to hear.

And what facts do you have to make this assessment? Seriously, what potential candidate doesn't court the media and take opportunities for exposure wherever ... it isn't like people weren't already aware of him. You think GWB handlers weren't putting him in front of media long before people were thinking about 2000?

I think his greatest handicap is that the old-school Dems know he'll be a hard dog to keep under the porch if he gets elected.

Um ah just what is your factual basis for that assessment? What in his microscopic 2 year career thus far has demonstrated any striking departure from Democratic orthodoxy? Granted, he's not as strident in his statements as the old bulls and presidential wannabes, but he votes is just like he's been told to vote: straight party line.

Oh crap, can't I just have a gut feeling? What is a straight party line anyway? Could it be that he voted the way he believed was right? Some DO that, ya know!