- The Washington Times - Monday, December 18, 2006

Obamamania seems to be the political flavor of the month. Illinois freshman Sen. Barack Obama drew crowds of 3,000 in New Hampshire — more than candidates usually pull in the last weekend before the primary. He has appeared not only on “Meet the Press” but also on “Monday Night Football.” His announcement he was thinking about running for president seems to have prompted New York Sen Hillary Rodham Clinton’s moves to kick her candidacy into gear.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen shows him getting 17 percent of the primary vote to Mrs. Clinton’s 34 percent, with no other candidate in double digits. Rasmussen has Mr. Obama getting favorable ratings from 52 percent of all voters, 2 percent more than Mrs. Clinton, and unfavorable ratings from 33 percent, 15 percent less. All this for a man who was almost totally unknown to voters when he stood up in July 2004 to deliver the keynote at the Democratic National Convention. You only have to watch the video of that speech again to realize why Mr. Obama has impressed so many Americans.

There is clearly a demand in the political marketplace for candidates who can rise above the bitter partisanship that has dominated our politics since Bill Clinton took office in 1993. That partisanship has been bitter in part because Mr. Clinton and George W. Bush — both born in the lead-off Baby Boom year of 1946 — happen to have personal characteristics that Americans on opposite sides of the cultural divide absolutely loathe. And it has been bitter because the demographic factor most highly correlated with voting behavior is religion and degree of religious devotion — which is to say, people with deeply held moral views. Too many people have come to regard the views of the other side as not only wrong, but evil.

Mr. Obama, by emphasizing what Americans of differing views have in common, invites us to an era of less bitter partisanship. His own background — mother from Kansas, father from Kenya, childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia, education at Columbia and Harvard Law — seems to span the breadth of American experience. He is clearly smart and carries himself with an attractive grace. But does all that really qualify him to be president?

It is a question Mr. Obama seems to be grappling with himself. If the complaint about President Bush is that he hasn’t worked aggressively and shrewdly enough to get the desired results on the ground in Iraq (and New Orleans), voters will be looking for a candidate who seems able to do so. Several candidates of both parties can claim they are.

Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani cut crime and welfare dependency more than 50 percent in New York City, and then performed astonishingly well on September 11, 2001, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Arizona Sen. John McCain has taken the leadership role on all manner of issues in the Senate and has gotten results. Gov. Mitt Romney made millions as an investor, rescued the Utah Olympics and pushed a universal health-care program through in Massachusetts.

Mrs. Clinton has experience working and achieving results in the White House. Al Gore made serious contributions to governance in Congress and in the White House. Mr. Obama’s resume includes one executive position: He directed Illinois Project Vote in 1992. Two, if you count his presidency of the Harvard Law Review. He’s been a law professor at the University of Chicago since 1993 and served in the Illinois Senate from 1996 to 2004, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Imagine a race between Rudy Giuliani and Barack Obama. Mr. Giuliani has centrist positions on some issues, while Mr. Obama has a voting record well on the left in the Senate. Mr. Giuliani has some interesting and novel things to say about issues; Mr. Obama can surely make good arguments for his stands, but they don’t seem likely to be very interesting — certainly not as interesting as, say, Bill Clinton’s discussion of issues in 1992. And Mr. Giuliani can argue he knows how to handle crises and how to get results from massive bureaucracies and uniformed forces.

Mr. Obama can say he has that ability, too, and perhaps he does. But we have no way of knowing for sure. Mr. Obama has the ability to be a strong candidate. But it’s not clear, perhaps not even to himself, whether he can be a strong and effective president.

Michael Barone is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide