Barack Obama's Political -- and Electoral -- Inexperience

Tuesday, August 14. 2007

Barack Obama's Political -- and Electoral -- Inexperience

As Sen. Barack Obama's inexperience in national politics -- specifically with regard to foreign policy -- seems to be showing again, it might be important to review his three most important political races:

1) In his first run for the Illinois State Senate in 1996, Obama's campaign had all four of his opponents in the Democratic primary thrown off the ballot, including the incumbent. Obama won the primary unopposed. Since the district is heavily Democratic, the general election was essentially inconsequential.

2) In his unsuccessful run for the US House in 2000, Obama was beaten 2 to 1 by incumbent Rep. Bobby Rush in the Democratic primary.

3) In his successful run for the US Senate in 2004, the leading candidate in the Democratic primary, Blair Hull, saw his campaign fall apart when records from his divorce were opened and contained allegations of domestic abuse. After Obama won the primary, his Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, had his sealed divorce records made public, and they contained allegations that Ryan had tried to talk his then-wife actress Jerri into performing public acts at a sex club. Ryan dropped out of the race and was replaced by the ineffective Illinois Republican Party with Maryland resident and perpetual candidate Alan Keyes, whom Obama beat by about 40%.

Given this background, it's hard to argue that Sen. Obama has been politically tested as a candidate. In his only seriously contested race, he lost badly.

Too many people seem to have discounted Sen. Obama's relative lack of any serious campaign experience, not to mention his relative national policy inexperience.

Perhaps it's only beginning to show through.

In that vein, a recent piece by Washington Post reporter Liza Mundy is worth a look.

Posted by Tom Elia in Politics at 13:29 | Comments (9) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

It doesn't really bother me all that much, and not just because I'm the type of superstitious person who sees all that luck and decides it's destiny; for the last 2 presidential elections, Democrats have picked experience, and it's gone historically bad for us.

Here's another thought, one that I don't think will show up in any editorials because it's just too shameful: Obama is the Democrats' Bush circa 1999. Not a lot of experience, but a lot of charm and pull with the party's faithful.

#1 some girl from Chicago on 2007-08-15 10:03 (Reply)

What I'm referring to here is campaign experience, and what it might mean as a predictor of campaign missteps.

As far as a comparison to Bush, I tend to disagree -- Bush's real political strength in 1998-1999 was his 'brand name,' and the fact that he upset a popular governor in what at that point had been a state dominated by the Dems.

Obama isn't a 'brand name,' he's a 'fresh face' who hasn't really won a seriously contested election.

I see that as a big difference.

#1.1 Tom Elia on 2007-08-15 11:09 (Reply)

I'm not saying there aren't some glaring differences-- I mean, hold up pictures of the two and you'll spot one right off the bat. I'm just saying that there are some similarities that can't be ignored.

Branding is certainly one of the differences, but don't forget that Bush managed to campaign (with a straight face) that he was "a Washington outsider". He proved that securing that type of reputation, one that actually depends on inexperience, can be a campaign asset.

#1.1.1 some girl from Chicago on 2007-08-16 11:49 (Reply)

I would note that Sen. Obama, a Chicago Democrat, is campaigning with a straight face about being a 'new kind' of politician.

His first election to the Illinois State Senate would seem to cast significant doubt on the veracity of that claim.

In my experience, the most common kind of 'change' a Chicago Dem usually brings is the kind found in his or her pocket -- the kind that used to belong to someone else before the Chicago pol 'visited.'

#1.1.1.1 Tom Elia on 2007-08-16 12:15 (Reply)

Obama as Bush 1999? Don Surber has a different view relative to his plan to bomb Afghanistan:

"For being such a “smart” guy, Obama sure can sound foolish. Under Bill Clinton, air raids was the weapon of choice as we bombed Bosnia (took out the Chinese embassy), bombed Iraq and even bombed Afghanistan — or as President Bush told Hillary shortly after 9/11, we threw million-dollar missiles at a $10 tent to hit a camel in the butt.

Hillary is Bush-Cheney lite? Then Obama is Quayle lite."

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/08/15/what-will-obama-bomb-next/

Ouch!

#2 capitano on 2007-08-15 21:30 (Reply)

Not to be snide, but George W in 1999? Despite an Ivy-League degree, he didn't exactly have a reputation for being the sharpest tool in the shed.

Obama does have that reputation, but as Bush, Quayle, and a lot of other politicians have proven: brains (or lack thereof) aren't a deal-breaker.

#2.1 some girl from Chicago on 2007-08-16 11:55 (Reply)

You touched on something here that always amuses me -- someone has a 'reputation' for 'having' or 'not having brains.'

Who it is that is pushing these 'reputations' says much about their veracity in my view.

#2.1.1 Tom Elia on 2007-08-16 12:07 (Reply)

Bush embraced his "not very smart" meme and used it to his advantage to beat the Dems at nearly every turn in Texas and in Washington D.C.

Obama came into the 2008 race with the brainiac rep and has had several unforced errors that have supporters and critics alike scratching their heads. I'm sure he's a very capable law prof, but I'll admit to being underwhelmed so far with Obama the candidate. I thought his shortcoming would be his thin resume, but I'm coming to believe now that he's just not a very good politician.

I predict as the campaign goes on more people who thought he was going to be a different kind of democrat are going to see him as just another panderer with more pigment and questionable judgment. But who knows, maybe that will be enough to get the nomination?

#2.1.2 capitano on 2007-08-16 16:27 (Reply)

why r u running for president are u scared hilliary's going to get it!

#3 Sally Smith on 2008-02-05 10:40 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Research Tools

Blogs

Regional Newspapers

Features

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites

Business News

Archives

Libertarian Ad Network

Categories

Old Archives

Tuesday, August 14. 2007

Barack Obama's Political -- and Electoral -- Inexperience

Search

Supporter

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,Magazines,and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,Magazines, andOther Journals

Research Tools

Blogs

Regional Newspapers

Features

Economics, Science, & Technology RelatedBlogs and Web Sites

Business News

Archives

Libertarian Ad Network

Categories

Old Archives

Tuesday, August 14. 2007

Barack Obama's Political -- and Electoral -- Inexperience

Search

Supporter

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites