Over at the Weekly Standard, Dean Barnett tries to downplay Obama’s speeches:
In spite of Obama’s obvious strengths in this area, questions linger regarding Obama’s gifted speechifying. Do his speeches give us a glimpse at a very special man with a unique vision? Or are we merely witnessing a political one-trick pony? Yes, Obama can turn a phrase better and do more with a Teleprompter than any other modern era politician. But does his special skill set here actually mean anything, or is it instead the political equivalent of a dog walking on its hind legs–unusual and riveting, but not especially significant?
1) I don’t think that Barnett is racist as Republicans understand the term “racist” (as far as I can tell, Republicans consider conservatives racist only if they join the KKK, and liberals racist only if they favor any program that might help people of color); I don’t know the man and can’t speculate about what he intends. But if this “Obama is like a trained dog” smear takes off among right-wingers, it’ll be because of its covert appeal to racism.
2) Obama isn’t as good speaking off the cuff as he is with a teleprompter; but that’s not because he’s substandard off the cuff, it’s because he’s off the fucking charts with a teleprompter. Obama’s been perfectly able to hold his own in debates, in interviews, and other occasions where he’s been talking without a script.
3) Even if it were true that Obama is terrible without a teleprompter — and it isn’t — so what? As John Cole at Balloon Juice points out, President Bush is mediocre with a teleprompter and disastrous without, yet he somehow managed to get elected. (Or close to elected.)
4) This attack isn’t going to fly. A good political smear should be time-consuming to rebut; it takes quite a bit of tedious explanation to prove that Gore didn’t claim to personally invent the internet, and that Kerry in fact was pretty brave in Vietnam.
In contrast, spend twenty seconds watching Obama on TV, and the “Obama is a dog walking on its hind legs” lie dies for everyone but the most hardcore reality-deniers.
If Obama wins the nomination, they’ll have to find a better lie to tag him with. Hmmn, what other quasi-racist criticisms could they throw up? I’m betting they try “lazy.”
[Edited for typos]
I don’t think your headline at all summarizes the point of the article. This looks like a slight re-wording of the same claim that Hillary has been making about Obama; that he lacks experience. It makes the point that he’s a great speaker but asks how much substance backs that up. Given that he is young and doesn’t have a long resume of experience I think it’s a valid cause for concern. You don’t seem to be upset about the claim, but rather the use of the visual about a dog walking erect. It’s impressive, but not necessarily useful. A dancing bear is more commonly used but that connotes a public spectacle. His point wasn’t that people are shocked a black guy can speak well but that Obama may not have enough substance behind his ability to communicate. What other visual would you suggest?
Again, I don’t think questioning a candidates experience is off limits.
But isn’t it true that black people have been insulted so many ways over history that almost any insult has a strong history of racism? The same thing with Senator Clinton. (Implying Clinton is like a dog comes off sexist, but for completely different reasons involving epithets based on female dogs.)
I mean, take the “Personality” criticisms of George Bush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_George_W._Bush
There are three sub-headings, which discuss criticism of his “leadership skills”, “Intellectual ability”, and history of alcohol/drug use. All fair criticism, I’d say. But can you imagine a political cartoon challenging Obama on ANY of these issues for which you could not easily write a 1,000 word essay on the history of racism that led up to that cartoon?
Any criticism of Obama will necessarily play to underlying racist beliefs among Americans. How can opponents possibly express “personality” based criticisms without playing into them?
The point of the article was not that Obama’s skills are lacking or that he’s a trained pooch. The point was that when he is unscripted, he reverts to Democratic type and launches attacks on his opponents. The article isn’t so much criticizing him for this as it is discussing it; it’s material because his campaign and his broad-based popularity have been predicated on transcending the stale partisan narrative.
And, what Rich said. With the exception of policy – where we don’t have much to work with because Obama has no track record to speak of – what exactly CAN he be criticized about, without it automatically being coded racism?
This isn’t a ‘personality’ criticism. This is a substantive criticism that he’s better at presentation than at substance.
Joe,
In my mind, a “substantive” critique is “I disagree with your view of Iraq/ abortion/ global warming/ ethanol subsidies.”
A “personality” critique is anything from McCain’s “temperment,” Obama’s “empty suit” to other “soft” issues like “leadership skills,” “ability to build consensus,” or whatever. What you define as a “substantive” critique I define as a “personality” critique, but that is just semantics.
In any event, I already voted on Super Tuesday (for Senator Clinton, in fact), so all I can do now is wait and whine.
I gotta ask:
President Bush is mediocre with a teleprompter and disasterous without, yet he someone managed to get elected. (Or close to elected.)
My emphasis added; was that a deliberate satire of Pres. Bush’s tendencies to malapropisms, or just a failure of spell check? The man is clearly the most inarticulate President we’ve had in my lifetime (I go back to Pres. Eisenhower).
it takes quite a bit of tedious explanation to prove that Gore didn’t claim to personally invent the internet
I didn’t vote for him either, but then-Sen. Gore has every reason to claim a leading role in turning a network limited to the military and some universities doing DoD research into the Internet. I’ve gone out of my way to explain this to numerous people.
In contrast, spend twenty seconds watching Obama on TV, and the “Obama is a dog walking on its hind legs” lie dies for everyone but the most hardcore reality-deniers.
Well, I’d have to watch someone for more than 20 seconds to make a judgment on such things. But while I’ve no intention to vote for Sen. Obama (the sleaze factor alone …), the last thing I’d think to accuse him of is not being a good public speaker either with or without a Teleprompter. That’s ridiculous.
Point of order; if you’re talking about someone’s comments and you’re going to use quotes, then what’s inside the quotes should be an actual quote of what they said, not your paraphrase of how you interpret what they said. If you in turn get quoted, the fact that it’s a paraphrase will get lost.
Yes, Obama can turn a phrase better and do more with a Teleprompter than any other modern era politician.
My first thought on reading this was, “Sort of like Reagan.” Reagan was very good with a teleprompter and rather…odd…without one. Yet he was never (as far as I know anyway) accused of being a “trick dog” and is even remembered with fondness by some. So why should Obama, who can speak well with and without a teleprompter, be considered less? Couldn’t have anything to do with race. Nah…
You could criticize Obama for relative lack of experience, for glibness, for a certain primness in demeanor, for perceived self-righteousness, for high flying rhetoric that doesn’t quite match his legislative record, for anything you disagree with in his legislative record, ditto for his policy positions – and so on.
You can’t call him lazy, because he isn’t. You can’t call him stupid, because he isn’t. As for his past experience with drugs vis-a-vis that of George W Bush’s: I would contend that Bush’s own drug and alcohol experiences unto themselves do not constitute fair grounds for criticism. Portrayals of him as a drunk have always offended me, perhaps because it hits too close to home: I know a lot of folks with drug and alcohol problems who deserve compassion, respect and help. Where Bush’s past is relevant is his policy positions on the War on Drugs, which speaks of hypocrisy and class/race privilege.
But while I’ve no intention to vote for Sen. Obama (the sleaze factor alone …)
You’d rather vote for John “Keating Five” McCain? Even after he’s decided to spend all his time cuddling up to George “Would you vote for this man if he had an illegitimate black child” Bush? Yeah, there’s someone with no sleeze in his background. Or maybe you’d prefer Mike “Release rapist/murderers if they’re born again” Huckabee?
McCain’s involvement in the Keating scandal was pretty ordinary hash for a politician. I have no love for McCain but I would not characterize him as a sleazy politico. Obama, on the other hand, seems pretty involved with some pretty bad people. That’s been getting a pass in the media, but it won’t continue.
“Obama, on the other hand, seems pretty involved with some pretty bad people. That’s been getting a pass in the media, but it won’t continue.”
? Do tell….
He’s intimately involved with Tony Rezko (Rezko sold Obama the land for Obama’s house in Illinois). Rezko is under investigation for political corruption and other things. I haven’t followed it closely (not my problem) but I’m sure RonF can give you all kinds of details.
As far as I know, Obama has not been accused of any personal wrongdoing. It’s just that the Rezko tie-in kind of fouls the field for any attempt to paint Obama as a clean reformer coming in to make the political system honest and clean again.
I think he makes a fair comment. You would not believe how much this guy reminds me of Tony Blair circa 1996. He got loads of support for precisely the same reasons – young, inspirational, with fantastic presentation and people skills, and up against a corupt old regime – despite not having much of a record to actually judge him on. Just remember how this turned out the last time.
I love the “my shit don’t stink” arguments about favored political candidates.
Obama is a machine politician. Very similar to Harry Truman in that sense. His history of association is certainly no worse than that of McCain.
Will an Obama administration be corrupt? Absolutely. Probably as corrupt as the average presidential administration has been over the past 200 years or so. Will a McCain administration be corrupt? Absolutely. I have more fears about the scale of corruption in a McCain administration due to his cozying up to the record breakingly corrupt Bush (version Shrub) administration. But concerns over the corruption of either (potential) candidate should be extremely minor at this point in time.
Personally, I’m much more concerned over things like SCOTUS & Federal Judiciary appointments and foreign policy and civil rights and transparency.
Ron, that was an unintended typo. :-P Thanks for pointing it out, I’ll correct it.
Just so folks know, my “Hereville” deadline — I need to get the first issue completed by March 10th in order to get it to the printer in time for showing it to people at Stumptown this year — makes it impossible for me to participate in “Alas” discussions.
James said, “…despite not having much of a record to actually judge him on.”
James why don’t you look at his legislative record in the Illinois State Senate where he served from 1997-2004.
Geeze I think that time alone is longer than John Edwards served in public office.
Oh wait we want people with federal experience because that state level experience doesn’t count. Oh wait Bill Clinton had no federal level experience at all. Gee, I guess he should have never been president. Gee and then we have George Bush, jr. who also never served in federal office at all before becoming President. Gee, neither did Ronald Reagan.
I don’t understand why the inexperienced Obama meme gets so much traction, when he’s served for quite some time in both federal and state offices.
He’s intimately involved with Tony Rezko (Rezko sold Obama the land for Obama’s house in Illinois).
He’s from Illinois. You can’t sneeze in Illinois without having to buy a tissue from someone with a sleezy background. I’m unimpressed. Also what Jake Squid said. There is no real possibility of a completely pure, non-corrupt politician. Go with the machine hack you like better.
Rachel,
I don’t think it’s the lack of federal experience that concerns people; it’s the lack of executive experience. Very few presidents are elected as little executive experience as Obama has. Lincoln is a very notable exception. And the several presidents with no executive experience since him at least had carried out a whole senate term (Harrison, Harding and Kennedy (and he had a bunch of years as a Congressman)). Every other president since Lincoln had experience as either a governor, vice-president, secretary, or general.
Now, what I find puzzling is the idea that Hillary Clinton has more experience. Granted she has a few more years in the Senate and you’d have to be amazingly obtuse to not pick up a thing or two being married to Bill. But experience? That’s such a funny, imprecise term. And it’s one that I think is largely irrelevent.
I do think that Obama’s Illinois record is instructive, though. It demonstrates that he will use things like “present” votes for political expediency, which of course is fine unless you are running as a non-idealogue on a platform of “change”, who is going to revitalize Washington. Just because he’s an eloquent speaker doesn’t mean he isn’t a partisan pol whose voting record doesn’t match his rhetoric. If he wins, I think he’s going to end up disappointed a lot of people.
Racheal,
1. While I don’t remember the Reagan years very well I remember questions from Clinton/Bush about whether running a state like Arkansas was ‘enough’ experience.
2. Reagan was governor of California prior to running for pres. And president of the SAG before that. I find that to be a MUCH better resume than state legislature.
3. Bush’s lack of experience really does seem to have been a problem. Also, I think state governor is (in general) a better qualification for president than state legislator. Even so I recall reading that Bush’s service as governor wasn’t as useful because the Governor of Texas doesn’t have that much power.
4. How is it EVER not appropriate to talk about if a presidential candidate is sufficiently prepared? I get that it might be a ‘cover’ for racism. And I would be suspicious about that if we were discussing say Colin Powel. But if it were Condi I think it would be a valid question.
Joe said, “…president of the SAG before that”
LOL!! Ok so then let’s count Obama heading the Harvard Law Review and his years of experience as a comunity organizer.
Every other president since Lincoln had experience as either a governor, vice-president, secretary, or general.
But does that mean they had more “experience”, whatever that nebulous term means? Eisenhower had no experience whatsoever in working within a democracy: he had never held elected office. Bush the Younger’s executive experience was as governor of Texas, a largely ceremonial post. Nor does experience necessarily bring effectiveness or ability. Bush I was a former CIA head, VP, and senator: lots of experience, yet he was essentially a failure as a president.
Also, I think state governor is (in general) a better qualification for president than state legislator. Even so I recall reading that Bush’s service as governor wasn’t as useful because the Governor of Texas doesn’t have that much power.
In general I might agree but IIRC, the ONLY power the governor of Texas has is to call a special session of the legislature. Seriously, “governor of Texas” is not a strong point on a CV. Being a member of any state legislature (with the possible exception of Texas) is a better qualification.
And the several presidents with no executive experience since him at least had carried out a whole senate term (Harrison, Harding and Kennedy (and he had a bunch of years as a Congressman)). Every other president since Lincoln had experience as either a governor, vice-president, secretary, or general.
As long as I’m going on about him… Truman had how much executive experience? 2 1/2 months? During which time he was pretty much excluded from any decision making. Although he did serve 10 years as a Senator. And before that he served as a judge.
Obama, OTOH, has had 8 years as a State Senator followed by 4 years as a US Senator. 12 years to Truman’s 10 and 2.5 months. Of course, GWB had only 6 years as Governor of Texas (a notoriously weak governorship). Let’s not forget about GHWB who never held elected position before VP (ETA: My mistake – he did serve 4 years as a US Rep). Even as VP, he didn’t have a whole lot of involvement in governance. VP, historically, is hardly a training ground for the presidency. The political & military histories of a number of presidents since Lincoln do not bolster your case for Obama’s inexperience.
Can we shut up about the lack of experience, yet?
Can we shut up about the lack of experience, yet?
Um, no? At least not w/r/t state senate.
State senators are a dime a dozen. They often serve small populations. It’s not entirely uncommon for a senator’s district to be extremely homogenous in terms of political views (I have no idea if this applied to barack). They are simply not very important people in the grand scheme of things. What do you think is more challenging–senator? Or mayor of Chicago?
And of course they are sure as hell a lot less important than a governor, who has the interesting job of running an entire state, complete with all the conflicting interests, etc.
This is not true. The governor of Texas can veto legislation, can call out the state militia, etc. Also, being governor gives immense rhetorical power to set the state’s agenda, propose legislation, etc. It’s not perhaps as strong a post as governor of NY or CA, but it’s not a ceremonial post. There’s a reason why people run for the office.
I’m skeptical of the comparison to being a state legislator, particularly in a place like IL where as I understand individual members have fairly little power.
Joe said, “How is it EVER not appropriate to talk about if a presidential candidate is sufficiently prepared? I get that it might be a ‘cover’ for racism. And I would be suspicious about that if we were discussing say Colin Powel. But if it were Condi I think it would be a valid question.”
It is quite appropriate, but I think it is fairly clear that Obama is being held to a different standard than many other candidates (as you note with the Clinton example).
PS–Colin Powell has never even held elective office, so he would have no experience whatsoever as an elected official.
And here in lies my problem with many of these discussions–if people really voted on qualifications, in terms of experience, my guy Bill Richardson would be the top democratic candidate. But experience is a subjective measure, and I think the fact that Obama is relatively young and black is causing people to give him more scrutiny.
Sailorman,
I don’t understand how your comment is relevant. So what if State Senators are a dime a dozen? Does that mean that experience as a State Sen. isn’t political experience? US Reps are a dime a dozen, should we discount that from somebody’s political experience? Is State Senate experience less relevant than that of Mayor of a town of 2,000?
The fact is, Shrub & Daddy Shrub both had significantly less elective political experience than Obama. The fact is that VP almost always is not a fount of political experience. Yet people want to ignore the former and pretend the latter is untrue.
Still, so what if State Senators are a dime a dozen? (By the way, we have 30 State Senators in Oregon – there are 59 in Illinois. That seems like a fairly small number of people to me, but that’s entirely subjective.)
Racheal, My point is that a candidate’s experience, both in terms of type and duration is relevant. Does only elective count? How about military. I’d like a candidate that had done impressive things outside of government but that’s me. You’re right about Powel never being elected. Maybe military experience isn’t that relevant. Seems like a good thing to talk about. Does that make me racist?
Also, we usually talk about a candidate’s strengths and weaknesses. Obama is young and has (in my opinion) the weakest resume of any of the top contenders. We’re going to talk about that. Bush was governor of texas so maybe people assumed he’d have enough experience. We spent a lot of time talking about the fact that he got C’s from Yale and everyone thought he was drunk and stupid. I haven’t heard a thing about Obama’s grades. We know McCain did poorly at the navel academy and I’ve seen a couple of articles about his age and health. (but from all I’ve heard he’s got more energy than Obama and Huck combined) Nothing about Obama’s health.
I agree that it’s not about all one thing. I liked Richardson the best as well in a large part because experience is important to me. Other people want a president that they feel cares about them. Some want one who will make decisions they feel are moral. I don’t think any of that is off limits.
Jake:
As long as I’m going on about him… Truman had how much executive experience? 2 1/2 months?
We’re talking about how much experience we’re looking for in a Presidential candidate. By the time that Truman stood for election as President he’d been President for 3 years.
Sen. Obama has been taking money from Rezko for his first election as State Senator and hasn’t stopped. And as a citizen of Illinois ever since I could vote, I’d say that “You can’t sneeze in Illinois without having to buy a tissue from someone with a sleazy background” is not true. Certainly you can’t sneeze without someone sleazy offering you a tissue, but you don’t have to take it. Unless your political ambitions completely override your ethics. Understand that Rezko didn’t just drop a few bucks Obama’s way; he helped make his political career, and has been involved all the way from the beginning.
And it’s not just politics with Obama. When he went to buy the lot he had his house built on, the seller had two lots and wanted to sell them as a package deal. So Rezko bought the other lot (I do believe that Rezko’s wife’s name is actually on the papers). Later on, Rezko sold a slice of the lot he bought to Obama. That’s not just politics, folks. That’s personal. That’s a different involvement than taking political contributions from him. Oh, and while Obama has given back the donations from Rezko for his Presidential campaign, I do believe he has not sent back all the money he got for his State and Federal Senatorial campaigns.
The most charitable way to look at this is to say that Obama is naive. Which makes you wonder what kind of job he’ll do in picking out his Cabinet, ambassadors, etc., etc., or dealing with foreign leaders who have been playing this game a lot longer than he has. Or just his everyday advisors. At worst, he’s a machine hack trying to fool everyone he’s Mr. Clean. Note that during recent campaigns he’s backed the machine candidates over the non-machines candidates looking for his endorsements.
Finally, if you want to accept his record, fine. He says he’s for change. He’s been an elected official for 11 years. What’s he changed so far? What’s he done in the U.S. Senate besides run for President?
BTW, regarding Rezko, he’s a political fixer. The local U.S. Attorney for the District of Northern Illinois (Fitzgerald) has indicted him for various corruption and conspiracy charges. He was out on bond of $3.5 million, which his friends and relatives raised by putting their houses up. But that bail was revoked after people in Lebanon (he’s a Lebanese national) sent him … $3.5 million. For living expenses, you see. The amount being what he’d need to reimburse his supporters so that they wouldn’t lose their homes if he skipped town was just a coincidence, he told the judge. The judge wasn’t born yesterday, however.
I tell yah – I pick up the Chicago Tribune. I read the front section and the editorials. Then I read the comics. If I can tell the difference it’s a good day.
Now, while there’s always a presumption of innocence, U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald is about 63 for 65 on these kinds of things so far, so the smart money is on Rezko going to jail. The smarter money is on Rezko then turning in higher-ups for a lighter sentence. Lots of people think that Fitzgerald will, with Rezko’s help, go 2 for 2 in putting Illinois governors in jail – the current question people like to throw around is whether current Governor Blagojevich will be at least indicted before or after his term ends. His predecessor in the governor’s office was indicted after his last term ended (after abandoning his re-election campaign in the face of his impending indictment), was convicted and is in jail as we speak, with appeals exhausted.
Connection to Mr. Rezko is no minor thing.
No, it just means that it isn’t AS GOOD political experience analysed in the context of the presidential race.
Discount as compared to what? Many people would discount it as compared to U.S. Senators, for example.
Ah, NOW you get it. Yes, of course being Mayor of a town of 2,000 is far less “good” experience than being a state senator and representing tens of thousands of constituents. That’s obvious, right? Just like being a state senator is less “good” than being a representative of a larger and more demanding thing–like being mayor of NYC, or a state senator, or a governor, etc.
? I don’t think many people who are Democrats are comparing them to the bush family. I’m not sure what you’re saying.
I think experience is important Joe, but I think the evaluation of experience is somewhat subjective. That’s the larger point, and I think Obama is being unfairly labeled as inexperienced. If people want to say his elected experiences are not useful, then the need to make that case. Rather than people just running around accepting that claim at face value. There is a racial double standard, and Edwards exemplifies that. He has never been labeled inexperienced in the way Obama has, and he is clearly less experienced
Joe said, “I haven’t heard a thing about Obama’s grades. We know McCain did poorly at the navel academy and I’ve seen a couple of articles about his age and health. (but from all I’ve heard he’s got more energy than Obama and Huck combined) Nothing about Obama’s health.”
Listen Joe, the reason you haven’t heard anything is because his grades were really good. Go check out his wikipedia entry–he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law. And you sure as hell don’t get elected to the Harvard law review without being a good student.
I think it is clear that both Clinton and Obama were much better students than the other two remaining candidates. Apparently, our white guys don’t have to be as smart.
Racheal,
Why do you keep specifying ‘elected’ experience. I think there’s different values in different backgrounds. If Colin Powel were to run because we’re at war and he used to be general and sec state that would make sense. (ignoring his role in getting us into this mess.)
A quick list and non-inclusive list off the top of my head
School Board
Generally Successful person
Head of a small successful company / group.
Mayor of a small town / Rich lawyer
Head of large useless company / group(hedge fund)
State Legislator / Judge
Federal Legislator
Head of a large useful/important successful company
Military/appointed experience (e.g. Sec State)
Successful state governor
V.P.
Previous Presidential Experience.
Personally, i don’t think state legislator is very good ‘experience’. So you should probably have plenty of it. So since that’s all he’s done I don’t think he’s done enough. I also don’t think Hillary is being fairly ranked for her experience. But it seems like most of the public disagrees with me.
Also, I sort of assumed the connection between law review and grades. But, if he had gotten B’s as a UG and people were talking about it as a differentiator between him and hillary/mccain would you think that was valid or racism? It seems like you’re going to point to anything beyond a wonky policy analysis (which MSM doesn’t do) and say ‘racism’.
Joe, Did I ever use the term racism? I think I said racial double standard. But, there isn’t a huge difference.
I personally do think that in this case, blackness is being subconsciously used, as a marker for inexperience. There is no reason that he should be labeled inexperienced; he’s not.
On another note, if you are going to be broad and use the criteria you mentioned about why not count Clinton’s experience as first lady?
I’m not saying it doesn’t count ‘at all’. It makes her better qualified than I am. (low bar!) but First lady isn’t a responsible position. She wasn’t in charge of anything (after the health care fiasco.) She never stood for office, she was never accountable. She never managed a department. I think she was much more active in the politics than in the governing.
Sorry for misstating your position. I was equating racism with racial double standard.
I don’t think Obama is inexperienced ‘in general’ I think he’s inexperienced compared to what I’d like to see in a presidential candidate. Since we’re talking about being president I have no problem saying ‘inexperienced’ when it would be more accurate to say “less experienced than the competition and possibly on the bottom end of what I’d like to see in a potential POTUS.”
FWIW, Richardson had what I would call a good background. I thought Edwards was marginal. I prefer candidates with management experience.
If Colin Powell were to run because we’re at war and he used to be general and sec state that would make sense.
Americans have tended to elect war heros after the war, not during them. Washington (Revolutionary), Jackson (1812), William Harrison (1812), Zachary Taylor (Mexican-American), Teddy Roosevelt (Spanish-American), Grant (Civil), Eisenhower (WW II) – all war heros to a greater or lesser extent. Powell could come under the heading of Gulf War I. Some were great, some O.K., and at least one (Grant) was a spectacular failure. The latter not because of personal corruption, but because he surrounded himself with the wrong people and trusted them too much. He failed to adjust to the fact that in the Army one could expect a certain level of personal honor that one did not find in the civilian world.
I fear that Obama will share the fault of not putting the right people around himself and having to depend on them too much, based on his relationships with certain Illinois politicians and their associates.
I talk about Obama because I see the local news about him, and because he hasn’t been around much and so such information isn’t out there about him. McCain, Clinton and Huckabee are already well known and I have nothing unique to add there.
RonF wrote:
We’re talking about how much experience we’re looking for in a Presidential candidate. By the time that Truman stood for election as President he’d been President for 3 years.
Ah, but at the time of the 1944 election, everybody knew that Truman would be POTUS before the 1948 elections came about. It was no secret that FDR wasn’t going to make it through another term. That is a big, big reason that FDR’s selection for VP in ’44 was a very important decision that affected the race.