Barak Obama for President? Not Yet

Recently, AC Content Producer Telika Howard did a review of a Time Magazine piece on Illinois Senator Barack Obama and his possible 2008 Presidential run called "Time Magazine Declares: Barack Obama May Be Next President." She highlights the article's focus on Obama's fervent religious beliefs and his desire to seek compromises with Republicans on key national issues.

While I find these things highly virtuous and admirable traits, Barack Obama is not a good Presidential candidate. I say this as a lifelong resident of Illinois and a center-left individual who loathes the current administration in power. As hard as it is for me to reject all of the good that Obama brings to the table (and he has a wealth of good and potential), I feel he is simply the wrong candidate for the Presidency in 2008. Care to know why?

Inexperience. This is the issue everyone knows. At 45, the man has less than a decade of experience in public service. As of right now, he has eight years of experience in the Illinois State Senate and two years of experience in the United States Senate. He has never held executive office in any capacity. In the Senate, he has ranked near the bottom in terms of operative seniority and only served on one of the essential committees (Foreign Relations).

Legislator, Not an Executive. Every Presidential victor in the from 1964 to the present has had their most significant previous office be in an executive position, not a legislative one. This is not an accident. Senators and Representatives always have a recent voting record, and given all the votes and decisions cast during a six-year term, almost anyone can be made to look bad. Remember John Kerry and the "flip-flop" issue? If you don't think this can happen to Barack Obama, you need to look at his voting record and remember that Republicans can smear almost anything. He did not vote on a bill to provide future funding for the troops. His voting record reveals that he can be easily labeled a "tax-and-spend" liberal. If Bush's popularity really tanks, he'll be smeared in the primary for voting to reauthorize the Patriot Act and approving Condoleezza Rice. That's what I came up with in five minutes. Republican strategists have been watching his every word for two years now. You do the math.

Not a "Fresh Voice." Yes, his speech at the DNC two years ago was fantastic and much-needed. But Obama is far from the "new force" in politics that one might think. His election win for the Senate seat was an absolute fluke. Trailing third in the polls, he caught one lucky break when a scandal booted Democratic frontrunner Blair Hull out of the race. After a comeback win in the primary, he won the seat mostly because the Republicans in Illinois are scandal-ridden fleas and their main candidate was caught in an embarrassing divorce story at the time, leading him to withdraw only to be replaced by the repulsive Alan Keyes. He basically walked into the United States Senate by default. He was relatively unremarkable during his days in the Illinois State Senate, and was previously slaughtered in a U.S. House seat primary. As much as it pains me to say this, all the hype surrounding him is based on one speech and, now, a populist book. He has yet to enact any major legislation or actually do anything that he can stand behind except his words, and words will be empty if the Republicans choose the right person.

The "R" and "G" Words. As much as I hate to write this paragraph, it is a political reality that many voters are averse to putting a non-white or a woman in the White House. I do not like that reality, and I think it hurts America, but it's a truth that all the magazine covers in the world aren't going to change. A Presidential candidate must be chosen with practicality in mind, and the truth is that the Democrats need to take Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and they need to make runs at as many "red" states as possible. 2008 is going to be a prime opportunity for a new Democratic regime to put a huge knife in Republican power. We - as in the political left - need to minimize our potential risks at losing votes. Not thinking practically, but rather with arrogant ideals, is what has consistently put the Democrats out of power for 26 years. The is not the time to try and be "progressive;" this is a time to be practical and win.

Conclusion. I have full confidence that Barack Obama will be a long-time servant for the good of the United States. I feel that someday he might make an outstanding President, but that day is not right now. He is too inexperienced and putting him out there is too much of a risk - both for the Democrats and for his future political hopes. With the reputation he holds now, he is too valuable a prospect to throw into the fire.

My Recommendation for the Democrats. I cannot preach this strongly enough, but the Democrats must look to a proven, popular governor. It does not matter if he is well-known right now; Bill Clinton was a fairly unknown governor of Arkansas in November 1990. Speaking of which, they must avoid Hilary Clinton at all costs. Most moderate Republicans and many independents (you know, the target audience) cannot stand the woman and she has a reputation about as clean as a napkin on rib night.

My Personal Choices? Unfortunately, Mark Warner of Virginia pulled out, so I think the party should look hard at Bill Richardson (New Mexico), Mike Easley (North Carolina), Tom Vilsack (Iowa) and Brad Henry (Oklahoma). Phil Bressden of Tennessee would not be a bad choice, nor would Retired Gen. Wesley Clark if the War in Iraq really gets out of hand.

What About Obama? If Obama seriously wants to be President - and sooner rather than later - he would make the perfect Vice Presidential candidate. The man's speaking ability is his best asset, and any candidate would benefit by having Obama on the ticket. Furthermore, if they win, the executive experience and nature of the Vice Presidency would be perfect for a Presidential run in 2012 or 2016. His time will come, but for his sake and the Democrats, it isn't in 2008.