Once again, Digby sets the scene and I find my own thoughts treading in his direction. I like Barack Obama well enough, and had thought he wouldn’t make the worst choice for President. I saw VP as more his thing, thanks to his lack of experience, but we could do worse for President. But Digby’s totally right and Barack is just going to have to sit this one out. Sure, it’d be a shame if our four-year system forced Barack to miss his window of opportunity, but until he actually earns some sort of reputation beyond his media-built one, that’s just the way things have to be. It’s not enough just to talk well. I want a President with actual accomplishments.
Frankly, I had already been thinking that the reason he wasn’t using his popularity to be a strong Dem was because he didn’t want to tarnish his rep with the dreaded stain of partisanship or (god forbid) a political failure. And isn’t that the real reason why they’re pushing Obama so much: Because he hasn’t been around long enough to develop a negative reputation, and can still float-by on rhetorical flourishes and Beltway adoration? And call me crazy, but I’m fairly certain that’s how we got stuck with our current Whitehouse occupant, who is still trying to float-by on rhetorical flourishes and Beltway adoration. Before becoming Prez, I believe Bush once even stated that 2000 was the year he needed to run for President, and that his moment would have passed had he missed that opportunity. Apparently, invincibility just ain’t what it used to be.
And just to show no hard feelings against Barack, I just added his name to my spellchecker. So he’s at least got that going for him. And if he’s not the flash-in-the-pan that he might turn out to be, the phrase President Obama might yet be a common refrain on this blog. As in the sentence “Why conservatives are wrong for suggesting President Obama is the devil” and “Why Republicans shouldn’t impeach President Obama”. I even see “Why the Beltway pundits soured on President Obama” as an obvious choice. I can’t wait.