Obama and experience

Bob Shrum in his book describes his decision to go with John Kerry over John Edwards in the 2004 campaign. He says he concluded that Edwards was "a Clinton who hadn't read the books." This description of Edwards as a lightweight seems also an apt characterization of Barack Obama. Michael Dorf makes the obvious point that lightweights are more electable in the sense that they don't have a record to hamper them on the campaign trail. But this doesn't answer the point--an electable candidate is not necessarily a good president, as Dorf certainly thinks concerning the current inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Almost a year ago the Economist gave this analysis:

What makes this all the more galling for the Clintonistas is that one of Mr Obama's most obvious advantages is that he is not Hillary. Mrs Clinton comes with a pantechnicon full of baggage. (What exactly has Bill been doing to amuse himself in New York these past few years, for example?) Mr Obama, by contrast, is fresh-faced and, so far as we know, baggage-free.

A recent piece in the Politico is evidence that Obama has some depth:

Interviews with those, and with a handful of others who participated in the Obama seminars, suggest, unsurprisingly, that the senator's discursive, academic style -- which can come as a surprise to audiences who expect partisan red meat -- was catnip to policy wonks. Though Obama hasn't spent decades participating in the national domestic policy conversation to the extent that Bill Clinton had when he first sought the presidency, guests said they were struck by both Obama's immersion in the policy details and his interest in the politics of policy.

David Brooks has gushed in the past about Obama not speaking in applause lines but in full paragraphs. Here he details how Obama can go back and forth between the big vision and the practical details. That's a really big asset for a president to have--see the big picture, but be pragmatic about the details. In the end, a candidate does not have to be Bill-Clinton-wonkesque to be a successful president. Edith Efron's classic article, "Can the President Think," analysed the failure of Bill Clinton on the ability to synthesize. It also detailed his charisma, that quality that covers over a multitude of sins. This ability to make press people fall in love with you is of course vital. An article in the Las Vegas Sun over two months ago detailed the media's questioning the weight behind Obama, and the reaction in the blogosphere which counteracted this narrative. At the end it quotes a book on the '72 campaign:

Much of this story was written decades ago, in the seminal account of “pack journalism” and its effect on the 1972 presidential campaign, Timothy Crouse’s “Boys on the Bus.”

“The press likes to demonstrate its power by destroying lightweights, and pack journalism is never more doughty and complacent than when the pack has tacitly agreed that the candidate is a joke,” Crouse wrote.

“A lightweight, by definition, is a man who cannot assert his authority over the national press, cannot manipulate reporters, cannot finesse questions, prevent leaks or command a professional public relations operation.”

Can Obama handle the press in this way? Can he assert his authority and, with blinding charisma, put himself forward as larger-than-life, such that he can convince the media he has what it takes to be president? It is a daunting task, and a gauntlet which does not necessarily produce a great leader who can handle the job. I believe that the bloom will come off the rose as far as the media and Obama are concerned. If he becomes the Democratic front-runner, a lot will depend on avoiding gaffes, which are often almost wholly media created (Dan Quale and potato, Bush 41 and the supermarket scanners).