Picture of the Day - "Rockstar"
We have not seen such fawning coverage of a Presidential candidate since a certain "brash" "maverick" ran for the Republican nomination in 2000. (AP, Reuters, AFP, NYTimes, WaPo)
Bayh, Vilsack, or even Clinton would give anything for this early coverage, but I keep thinking that it's a long way down from here.
(In N. H. yesterday. (AFP/Getty Images))
posted by mikevotes at
7:59 AM
2 Comments:
Rock stars come and go. They often burn out very quickly.
I'm ambivalent toward Obama. I know more about his hype than I do about his actual politics. I know more about his speeches than his voting record.
I think Feb '08 (NH primary) is a looooong way's off. If the midterms are any indication, I think the grassroots/netroots are going to be very influential, and they seem to lean toward common sense, no-nonsense populist progressives. Going out on a limb, I don't think the Dem nominee will be from among today's top tier pols.
But maybe that's because I'm a Wes Clark guy. :) Hope springs eternal...
By
-epm, at 10:09 AM
I agree on Obama, but I think the '06 election was about frustration and powerlessness. And he is positioning against that with both the "hope" message that he conveys very well on the stump, and with an economic populism.
I do think he'll burn out a bit because right now he's more message than substance, but I don't think his arc is over yet.
The '06 election was also very pragmatic, and unless he can add some beef to his image and policies, he will never get that broad support.
(And, just as a teaser, isn't he stronger if the Congress doesn't do very well? Isn't his outsider/fresh face, etc better if the Dems aren't greatly successful?)
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 11:41 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home