I'm sorry - but if you get space in the Washington Post, shouldn't you use it to put forward something that's original and/or informative? Ruth Marcus wastes her space today by saying that Obama should wait until 2012 to run. Now that wouldn't be the end of the world for a column, if said column actually produced interesting reasons to support that position. But this column only contains two sentences - count 'em, two! - in the entire piece that give reasons for that position. One is a reasons we've already heard endlessly, and the other ... well the other is weird.
He will have learned more -- about the world, about domestic policy, about how to maneuver successfully in Washington.
... also offer the opportunity that Obama hasn't yet had: to set out and achieve legislative goals.
Point one has been hit to death, and by that logic wouldn't you think Robert C. Byrd and Ted Stevens should be the front-runners in 2008, or think that ANYONE who hasn't lived in Washington for decades can't be a good president? Might Obama be a better president with more seasoning? Maybe. But that doesn't mean he couldn't be a perfectly good one now. And her latter point is so stupid (or to be kinder - divorced from the realities of presidential electoral politics) it makes my head hurt. Since when do voters care about whether or not someone has legislative accomplishments when casting their ballots for president? Maybe we should ask presidents Bob Dole, Dick Lugar and Mo Udall?
Press types, if you don't want Obama to run, fine. But give us new reasons why. We've already heard the inexperience argument (many times), which is a little odd in and of itself give how rare it is that a president takes office with lots of experience in DC.
Oh, and no, past drug usage doesn't count as a legitimate argument either - consider who lives in the White House now.
Posted by armand at January 3, 2007 10:36 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Politicsnot to mention, as we've seen on this site and elsewhere, obama hardly failed to make his presence known on the legislative front, and in fact has a tidy little bipartisan record on poverty and a couple other things -- an entirely appropriate body of work for a freshman senator given his limited time in office to date.
Posted by: moon at January 3, 2007 11:11 AM | PERMALINK