Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
11:20 AM
I've seen about a dozen of these stories pop up in the last two weeks. They tend to be all the same - reports of highly energized grassroots types putting "Draft Obama" petitions in play for the run at the White House. This is happening in states like Oregon where Obama hasn't even been. And where Obama has gone - Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. he continues to draw crowds that are larger than Clinton (Bill), Reagan, and even the Kennedys.
As I have been pointing these things out I have received an abundance of e-mail comparing Obama's early good press to Howard Dean. Many trying to say, "hey wasn't Dean the pro-coronated favorite and look how he burned out."
Those are certainly true observations, but here's where that line of thinking falls flat on its face. Dean's excitement was virtual - not real. Dean had long embraced the power of the internet, the blogosphere specifically and had attempted to harness it as a fundraising vehicle first, and tool of communication to get the message out - secondly.
The problem with Dean was that his heavy favorite position that was reflected in polls - was not necessarily seen in grassroots turnout. No one was begging to "Draft Dean." And he did not draw real bodies to actual events in the early states the way Obama is (two years before the big dance.)
I also need to draw a point of observation here as well.
Many of my critics are also saying that I'm off on the Obama prediction by claiming Obama to be an "empty-suit". Friends, call him anything you want, call him short on experience, call him only two years deep into his freshman Senate term, call him a baby-face in Washington - but Obama is not an empty-suit. John Edwards is for sure, but not Obama.
Obama's ability to identify across a broad spectrum of people groups comes from a very multi-faceted background that has allowed him to live in MANY different environments. His exemplary record at Harvard Law school would make most of our recent Presidential candidates reel in embarassment. He also was the FIRST African American to head the Harvard Law Review.
Everything about Obama's political career has been strategic. The reason he settled on Chicago as his home base. The reason he ran for the state positions that he did. Even in running for Congress and losing against Bobby Rush he observed, analyzed, and re-strategized.
In actual comparison, Hillary Clinton is more of an empty suit than Obama is. Her record, and limited time in the Senate is of no more note than Obama's. Neither of them have authored legislation that has become law. Yet they have both been strategic in committee placement, negotiation, and no two democratic personalities have raised more money for the the party in the last four years.
Hillary Clinton may have the name Clinton - but she lacks the likeability and the warmth of William Jefferson. Hillary was long the strategist, the idealogue, the agenda driven half of the team.
In reality Obama has the outward warmth of Bill, but internally he is an even more analytical strategist than Hillary dreams of being. True - he does not yet have the organization, but right now he has the masses - and compared to Dean, Edwards, and Hillary there's not a one among the three of them that wouldn't trade places with him right now!