Brad, it looks like Obama might run in 2008 already

[Hans Deventer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102200220.html

Would be interesting.

[BobHunt]

for President? He has been in Congress only 2 yrs right? Even Democrats say it is doubtful he would be elected.

[Gina Stevenson]

for President? He has been in Congress only 2 yrs right? Even Democrats say it is doubtful he would be elected.

He's probably aware of that, as well. HOWEVER, that's possibly part of the "game" ... garnering some name recognition this time for four-eight years later. Have to admit, he's be better known then if he campaigns, tries to be the Dem pick this time around.

[Hans Deventer]

for President? He has been in Congress only 2 yrs right? Even Democrats say it is doubtful he would be elected.

Considering how most people seem to view Congress, I would consider such a short time there to be a recommendation :basic05

[Jeremy D. Scott]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102200220.html

Would be interesting.

DO it DO it DO it

http://www.barackobama.com/media/call_to_renewal/

[Bruce Carriker]

I'd have a tough time choosing between O'Bama and McCain. I'd be fearful of both, that they'd sell out their populist positions and move to placate the so-called "core" of their respective parties.

[Brad Mercer]

Well, of course, I do have political views, and a real interest in who gets elected president, but my primary interest in presidential elections is the strategy, the game, the horse race. So here's my assessment of Obama.

It will be very difficult for him to resist the appeals to run in 2008. His speech at the 2004 Democratic convention was by far the most compelling -- better than Kerry, Hillary, anyone. It was also better than most of the GOP convention speakers, including Bill Frist who has been talked about as a candidate for 2008. His speech was as good as Ted Kennedy's in 1980 or Mario Cuomo's in 1984. He did an absolutely brilliant job of laying out a broadly acceptable, appealing underlying philosophical worldview to support and make sense of the Democratic platform that can often come across as a disconnected hodge-podge of positions that are out of touch with mainstream voters.

He presented a Deomcratic moral sense that can appeal to independent and moderate voters who might be scared away from other Democratic candidates taking essentially the same stands on issues. When Democrats talking about needing to do a better job of getting their message out, I think they mean -- or need to mean -- framing it like he does. He's bright, thoughtful, and able to make a case that Reagan Democrats could embrace, I think.

I don't think he'd have any difficulty raising the money or gathering top talent to his campaign. And I don't think his brief resume as such is a killer. Teddy Roosevelt went from New York City police commissioner to president in three years. Woodrow Wilson went from president of Princeton to president of the U.s. in three years. I think JFK had only served one term in the senate when he was elected president.

Here, however, is where inexperience winnows a presidential field. No office a person has ever run for or held compares to a presidential candidacy when it comes to how closely one's background is picked apart and one's every utterance examined. That's the toughest thing, and the thing that narrows the field.

Every single word a candidate utters, in any setting, no matter how informal, or small the audience, no matter how joking or spontaneous, every word he or she speaks is disected like it was a major, thought-out, firmly held policy position, and he or she is forced to defend or retract it as such. Jokes come back to haunt you. Emphasizing one consideration on an issue for one audience and another for another doesn't work when you're running for president like it does when you're running for anything else. Thinking out loud, examining the pros and cons and working through an issue out loud doesn't come across as honest and thoughtful, it comes across as wishy-washy and evasive. Family problems and financial and even recreational decisions are attacked with a level of ferocity that we take for granted as spectators but that is devastating for any but the thickest of skins.

Many potential candidates in both parties looked very attractive to party activists but adamantly refused to run because they knew their background or their family could not withstand what they would need to endure in the campaign. Colin Powell and Mario Cuomo are in that list. An equal number chose to run but crumbled, like Edmund Muskie in 1972.

It's a long road from being promoted as a dream candidate to taking office, and you never know who's going to make it until they've made it, but it doesn't necessarily come down to who's the brightest or the most right on the issues.

I think it usually comes down to who can do the best job of staying "on message", who has most on-screen charisma and who can withstand the withering criticism and background probes.

Only time will tell if Obama can do that.

Brad