Obama 2008 and the Tomb of the Senate
Jonathan Alter has an interesting analysis of the chances that first term US Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) will be a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008.
I bet Hillary regret's not going back to Illinois to run for office! ;-)
It is an interesting piece, but what caught my eye was the weight assigned to Senate service in the analysis. Alter writes :
This is thinking is consistent with not only my thinking general to the subject, but also recent history.
The last President elected from the Senate was John F. Kennedy in 1960. Several US Senators have contended for a major party nomination based from a senate seat or been tabbed for the VP nod, but only Dole and Kerry have won the presidential nomination as a sitting senator.
Why is this?
1. Voting Record: Alter notes the controversial votes, but I also point to the non-controversial and procedural votes that can be spun against you. Spend two terms in the Senate, and there will be a treasure trove of votes to point to when trying to defeat an incumbent.
2. Control: As the Executive you have more control of the agenda you face, you have control over a large number of appointments, and between these you have a greater opportunity to build a foundation from which to run.
3. Temperment: I think there is a different mindset needed to be an effective executive as opposed to being a successful legislator. Different skills are needed. That is one reason I think it is foolish to hear talk of Jim Gilmore running for the US Senate, and why I thought it was a great move for Mark Warner to pass on 2006 to aim for 2008.
If Obama goes, will this be a trend? Will the new paradigm be that there are two types of Senators? Will US Senators be categorized as career legislators or potential presidents?
It will be interesting to see what happens, but do not be surprised if the equation Obama's advisors are using above does not become the logic used by other senators to run for the party nomination early in their careers as opposed to late.
I bet Hillary regret's not going back to Illinois to run for office! ;-)
It is an interesting piece, but what caught my eye was the weight assigned to Senate service in the analysis. Alter writes :
His advisers believe his mere four years in the Senate will not be a liability (Abraham Lincoln ran after two years in the House, Woodrow Wilson after two years as governor, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter and now Mitt Romney after four years as governor.) “The Senate is a political tomb,” says one. The longer one stays, the more controversial votes one casts.
This is thinking is consistent with not only my thinking general to the subject, but also recent history.
The last President elected from the Senate was John F. Kennedy in 1960. Several US Senators have contended for a major party nomination based from a senate seat or been tabbed for the VP nod, but only Dole and Kerry have won the presidential nomination as a sitting senator.
Why is this?
1. Voting Record: Alter notes the controversial votes, but I also point to the non-controversial and procedural votes that can be spun against you. Spend two terms in the Senate, and there will be a treasure trove of votes to point to when trying to defeat an incumbent.
2. Control: As the Executive you have more control of the agenda you face, you have control over a large number of appointments, and between these you have a greater opportunity to build a foundation from which to run.
3. Temperment: I think there is a different mindset needed to be an effective executive as opposed to being a successful legislator. Different skills are needed. That is one reason I think it is foolish to hear talk of Jim Gilmore running for the US Senate, and why I thought it was a great move for Mark Warner to pass on 2006 to aim for 2008.
If Obama goes, will this be a trend? Will the new paradigm be that there are two types of Senators? Will US Senators be categorized as career legislators or potential presidents?
It will be interesting to see what happens, but do not be surprised if the equation Obama's advisors are using above does not become the logic used by other senators to run for the party nomination early in their careers as opposed to late.
posted by Bwana | 10:07 AM
1 Comments:
In my view, Obama is much more likely to be the vice presidential nominee in 2008.
Bob Dole resigned his Senate seat prior to the 1996 GOP convention.
The only other sitting U. S. senator besides JFK to be elected president was the Republican Warren Harding in 1920. The only other sitting member of Congress to be elected was the Republican Rep. James Garfield in 1880. (You'll note that all three died in office.)
I'm an admirer of your Sen. George Allen, and I'm curious as to whether, assuming that he's re-elected, you Virginians think he may still be a viable presidential candidate in 2008.
Unlike Kennedy, Harding, or Garfield, Sen. Allen has also served as governor of his state.
BTW: Any political junkie will find an account of the 1920 Republican National Convention, which wound up nominating the Harding-Coolidge ticket, to be fascinating.
Post a Comment
<< Home