Ever since Sen. Barack Obama announced the beginning of an exploratory committee to run for president in 2008, there has been a tremendous amount of excitement that has spread outside the traditional circle of pundits and political power brokers. The media is eager to dissect this excitement, to question it, to hold it up to ridicule. Make no mistake, this excitement is real and it is something progressives should be applauding, not deriding.

As Sen. Obama has said Americans "are looking for something different--we want something new." Obama is more than something new though. He is the first potential Democratic candidate who's mustered the charisma, energy and promise of Bill Clinton, unsurprisingly the last Democrat who won the presidency. He's an articulate and appealing speaker. He is the only serious contender for the nomination who has had the right position on the most important issue of the day (Iraq) since the very beginning of that conflict (he opposes the war and wants a redeployment of troops). He presents an opportunity to bring a ethnic diversity to the White House for the first time.

Yet progressives are skeptical. They assail his voting record, when it's actually one of the most progressive we have to choose from. They question his experience when two of our greatest presidents, Kennedy and Lincoln could barely boast of having more in their days. Even African-Americans have succumbed to negative doubts. Robert Ford, a black state senator from South Carolina who supports John Edwards said, "We in the South don't believe America is ready to elect a black President".

Well I am one black American who believes we are. I have met and known whites and blacks from all walks of life and from different political persuasions who are intrigued by and open to supporting a Barack Obama candidacy. A recent poll found that 93 percent of Americans are willing to vote for a black candidate. It should be 100 percent, but I'll take it as a vast improvement over recent years.

Is Sen. Obama a flawless candidate? No. Does he share a liberal-progressive's views on all the important issues of our day? Most likely not. Should he be served the nomination on a silver platter? Absolutely not. But Americans who are on the left of the political spectrum have been complaining for years now about a lack of an exciting alternative to the Republicans come election time. They held their noses as they cast votes for conventional, safe and experienced candidates like Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry. All of them were decent, qualified men who inspired practically no one. Why not now, just for a moment, bask in the adoration and admiration that Obama manages to generate, and instead of picking him apart, perhaps we should just be glad that he appears to be on our side.

Comments (17)

1. "He is the first potential Democratic candidate who's mustered the charisma, energy and promise of Bill Clinton, unsurprisingly the last Democrat who won the presidency."..."Does he share a liberal-progressive's views on all the important issues of our day? Most likely not."

   Barack is another Bill?....maybe you just answered your own question, Mr Howard on why the Left is criticizing him?

   Another reason might be that he's full of flowery talk, but few specifics.

   but...the search for the "Anti-Hillary" goes on...good luck!

   Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 10:54am

2. Bask, soak.

   anybody but Hillary.

   it will give the DLC fits, though. And that is worth the price of admission.

   Posted by crabwalk at 01/18/2007 @ 11:25am

3. I think Adam Howard has made a good point here, one that all progressives (and I certainly count myself in that camp) would do well to keep in mind...we're not going to get a President as progressive as we are. It's not that many (even most) Americans don't like many core progressive values, but the push of politics and what drives campaigns militates against any candidate that has more radical views on either the right or the left (even BushCo was originally represented as a right-centrist back in 2000.) Obama is about as close as we're going to get on the left to what we want, and he does have the charisma (don't mock it Mask, it's a critical element for a successful candidate) to do what needs to be done.

   That said, I'm going a bit beyond this article to say that the forces that make Obama the best we're likely to get are what many of us here on both sides of the political spectrum have already been decrying for quite some time...the over-riding importance of money. NPR had a rather depressing story [npr.org] yesterday in the wake of Obama's annoucment on the subject of fund-raising that really put this into perspective. The basic point was that presidential campaigns cannot use the existing public finance (i.e., matching funds) system if they want to be viable. The restrictions are simply too much of a handicap. Instead, the real test even in the primaries is now strictly financial, with the conteders on both sides in 2008 needing to raise $50 to $100 million just for the primaries. The prediction for the general election is that it will be the country's first billion dollar campaign. The story notes how even those who talk about reform have no choice but to play the current system because they can't get elected without it, even the charismatic ones like Obama, whom they cite as one of the reform-minded, giving this quote from his announcment:

   "Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first."

   They also note that outsider challanges in the past have been made possible by the public matching-funds system, including those of Reagan and Bush I (in 1976 and 1980 respectively, which set the stage for their later victories.) It was a system that actually worked until a major presidential candidate set it aside and changed the playing field. Of course I'm sure you can all guess who that was; one George W. Bush (in 2000.) It is likely that no majr candidate this year will take the matching funds because to be a major candidate they won't be able to abide by the spending limits. Thee's the real problem for any progressive (or for anyone else who cares about our system actually representing the people rather than narrow special interests); the hold of the few and the rich (both individual and corporate) on our political system. That's what we've got to change, and Obama is at least making the right noises in that direction. For that alone, he'll get my vote without hesitation.

   Posted by Stwriley at 01/18/2007 @ 11:29am

4. Gotta take a closer look at this guy. If the left has problems there must be something to him. Certainly the "Red State-BlueState" part of that speech a few years ago struck a cord with me, as I have seen my own generation as the most divisive, hence least effective, since the Civil War. Question is, do his true convictions really match his rhetoric.

   Chip

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/18/2007 @ 11:50am

5. For those of us on the right side of the spectrum the orgasms over Obama are frightening...the fact that the left loses its breath over an unproven at anything candidate is disturbing...for us, looking at OBAMA ...and watching the MSM with its partners at the Dem Party push him as something special is incredulious...if he were a new Doctor just coming out of med school, no surgerys, granted no dead paitenst yet, but no successful ones either, no pattern of diagnosis nor competency recorded...and those here are willing to turn him over for my heart surgery... you might want to consult the patient..

   1. Was he the best in school or was he let in with lower scores due to AF? My life may depend on it,therefore, it matters and I should be able to verify competency.

   2. Did he finish in the top ten? or bottom 10?

   3. He needs to estasblish a history..today he has none...

   The metaphors or similies(I never could get a grip on the correct term) can be aplied to any candidate being put forth...is the candidate being pushed by media and the system or is he being pulled up on stage by real demand and desire by the people in general because of a record he established....I suspect the former.. Rarely does one get to be the President of COke without having made, bottled, or a least sold the product...and 2 years in sales does not make for a president of the company....especially one over 250 years old..

   Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2007 @ 12:03pm

6. As a native of Illinois, I (like around 80% of my fellow Illini) voted for Mr. Obama in 2004. Since then he has talked the talk; I do have a problem with him voting for that monstrously unfair and inequitable bankruptcy law from last year which just served up a heap of U.S.C. to the various credit card /usurer companies at the exspense of those who can least afford it. However, if one looks at john edwards and his very progressive economic issues message, is Senator Obama as good as we can expect?

   Posted by The Goods at 01/18/2007 @ 12:05pm

7. Maasch: Obama was editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review. He also taught a course in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Both of them are, to say the least, are highly regarded programs. I think therefore that we know he is at the top rather than the bottom of his class.

   Posted by The Goods at 01/18/2007 @ 12:08pm

8. Whoops; one too many ares

   Posted by The Goods at 01/18/2007 @ 12:09pm

9. Good, he was good in school...now from school to governmemt...and nothing in between..

   apparenty this is good enough for many..

   Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2007 @ 12:32pm

10. Posted by STWRILEY 01/18/2007 @ 11:29am

    I don't mock "charisma", STW....just "charisma ALONE".

    Obama's all platitudes, no specifics. The moment he DOES start coming out with some specifics, not just "We need good health care for everybody in this country" but how he wants it implemented and how he wants to pay for it and how he's going to keep it from becoming a bureaucratic nightmare....then I'll see.

    Right now, I think what Adam Howard is noting is the "Purist" elements of the Left versus the "Pragmatists" (or even the "Tricksters", who think "Obama will sound 'centrist', but become a 'real progressive' once in office!").

    I don't think he REALLY needs to worry about it. The liberals hate Hillary (almost universally), but will vote for her if she wins the nomination, just like they'd vote for Obama if he runs "centrist" in the primaries.

    Nobody but the ZERO/ALANSMITHEE Fringe are going to vote for a "Nader" and risk another 2000.

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 12:55pm

11. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2007 @ 12:32am

    Good, he was good in school...now from school to governmemt...and nothing in between..

    apparenty this is good enough for many..

    I suppose you'd prefer someone who was at best a C student, has an MBA (but hasn't ever run a successful business with it) rather than a law degree (followed by a highly regarded career as a civil rights lawyer and legal professor), and brings to the job the political experience of one term as a (fairly poor) state governor and a lackluster series of flunky jobs on friends and relatives political campaigns rather than the experience of a freshman Senator and a successful series of community action comapigns?

    Oh, but of course you did, didn't you?

    We have what's "good enough for many" right now...

    Let's try something different.

    Posted by Stwriley at 01/18/2007 @ 4:21pm

12. Posted by STWRILEY 01/18/2007 @ 4:21pm

    STW, isn't there a WEE bit of hypocrisy going on from the Obamaites over "experience"?

    Seems these were the same people who were TOUTING the need for experience, the large amount in Gore, and the lack of it in Bush.

    Now if it comes down to McCain vs. Obama....or even in the primaries, somebody like Joe Biden or Bill Richards vs. Obama....we can hang the sign on the White House "Position Open, No Experience Necessary"!?!?!??

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 4:40pm

13. Posted by MASK 01/18/2007

    Correction...don't want to diss my choice...Bill RichardSON.

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 4:41pm

14. Posted by MASK 01/18/2007 @ 12:55am

    Count me as a pragmatist. As far as the whole idea that Obama hasn't offered specifics, that's just the nature of political campaigns at this early stage. None of the other candidates (well, the ones that have a snowball's chance in a microwave, anyway) have been more forthcoming in either party. This is still the time of platitudes, but Obama like all the rest will have to get more specific if he's going to stand out from the crowd, and he will. You're just parroting the "all fluff" argument of the right here Mask, but it's no more or less valid for Obama than for all the rest.

    By the way, you're probably right about Hillary. The new Zogby poll [zogby.com] of Iowa has her languishing in a tie for third place with Vilsack (and he's the favorite son candidate.) The real surprise there is Edwards, who polls 27% to Obama's 17%. The new nationwide Gallup poll [pollingreport.com] on the Democratic nomination has Hillary leading 29% to Obama's 18% and Edwards 13% though, so who knows where this thing is going. I kind of doubt it will be Hillary's way (given the fact that she's dropped four points from a month ago), but I also don't think this is even remotely sewn up for Obama (or anyone else) either.

    And just so you folks on the right don't feel left out, Gallup also polled on the Republican nomination [pollingreport.com] nationwide and Giuliani is now leading McCain by 31% to 27% (they were tied at 28% a month ago.) Looks like it's going to be a long year for all the would-be leaders of the free world.

    Posted by Stwriley at 01/18/2007 @ 4:45pm

15. Posted by MASK 01/18/2007 @ 4:40pm

    STW, isn't there a WEE bit of hypocrisy going on from the Obamaites over "experience"?

    Seems these were the same people who were TOUTING the need for experience, the large amount in Gore, and the lack of it in Bush.

    Now if it comes down to McCain vs. Obama....or even in the primaries, somebody like Joe Biden or Bill Richards vs. Obama....we can hang the sign on the White House "Position Open, No Experience Necessary"!?!?!??

    Not really. They attacked BushCo for his lack of national experience (especially on foreign policy, because he showed virtually no understanding of or interest in it) and not just experience in general (though they did point often to his failure as a governor and businessman), which is perfectly fair and doesn't apply to Obama, who has so far been a passable Senator and was very successful in private life. They certainly did tout Gore's experience because it was an obvious qualification for the job, but that was specific to Gore, not an attack on inexperience in general. So no, not hypocrisy, just a different set of circumtances and candidates.

    As for the "Position Open, No Experience Necessary" quip, didn't you read Howard's piece? Lincoln came to the presidency with less experience than almost any other we've had, with only one term as a Congressman for political experience. I seriously doubt you'll find very many Americans who'd question his fitness for the office on grounds of "lack of experience."

    Posted by Stwriley at 01/18/2007 @ 4:59pm

16. "They attacked BushCo for his lack of national experience (especially on foreign policy, because he showed virtually no understanding of or interest in it)"

    like Bill Clinton vs. Bush-41????

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 6:54pm

17. Writer Adam Howard is exactly right about Obama. It just appears that in our political climate, Dems cannot just be competent and qualified, they have to be brilliant and inspirational in order to become President. We need to appreciate that we have someone fighting for Democratic causes who so fits this profile. I personally do not see how anyone who listens to Obama speak could believe that he does not have what it takes to be President. Let's not squander this opportunity by knit-picking the man to death.

    Posted by Dan Teague at 01/20/2007 @ 9:05pm