Contrasting opinions on rising Democrat star Barack Obama today from Kevin McCullough and Ed Morrissey.
McCullough predicts that Senator Obama will be taking the Presidential oath of office in 2009, and lays out the reasons why.
Morrissey is concerned about Obama's lack of experience and says "...this Obama boomlet looks like desperation" on the part of Democrats who normally might counsel him to take the time for some seasoning -- perhaps as governor as Illinois.
Morrissey goes on: "Democrats want to take a freshman and vault him not just to the varsity but to make him the captain of their team. It might work -- or it might turn out to be a disaster" which could ruin his future political aspirations.
It may not be politically correct to say so, but one wonders if there is a sort of reverse racism in play here, due to Obama's "black" (in reality, racially mixed) ethnic background. Obama is an attractive and articulate man. But he has almost zero legislative or executive experience. Even Bill Clinton, who rose to the Presidency in part because many people found him similarly appealing, had executive experience as governor of Arkansas.
It's an uncomfortable question but one that perhaps should be asked regarding what some call Obama's "rock star" appeal: Would he be greeted with the same over-the-top enthusiasm at this very early stage in his career if he were perceived as white?
I note that Rush Limbaugh mentioned today that another front-runner, Hillary Clinton, doesn't have a great deal more legislative experience than Obama. She has no executive experience. Some pundits tout Hillary having lived in the White House as a valuable part of her resume. (Somehow I don't think that would play well were Laura Bush to run for office.) In Hillary's case, what she has going for her, beyond a term in the Senate, is being the first "serious" woman candidate.
2008: The year of the affirmative action "celebrity" Democrat candidate?