Our Latest Stories:

In the wake of an Iowa speech described as stirring in a speculative Times article (but really just a repetition of his canned, regular political stump speech), there’s a great deal of buzz about a run by Barack Obama for the Presidency in 2008. Sure, a piece in the New York Times is going to stir the pot a bit, but those who attended the Iowa Steak Fry independently reported some excitement about Obama:

Political Forecast:

Tom Vilsack spoke as did Tom Harkin, both leading (indirectly and directly) leading up to the star of the day, Barack Obama. Both expounded on the need to get out the vote and bring in the Democrats in Iowa and across America.

Barack Obama, though–it was his day Sunday. Given that its his first visit to Iowa, it can be safely assumed that before this event, most Iowans had never seen Barack Obama and thus only saw him on TV and in pictures, where its hard to get a feel for how well he delivers. I’ve seen him once before, at Governor’s Day at the Illinois State Fair in August, and he never fails to inspire.

I was not disappointed, nor was the crowd. Senator Obama roused the crowd, culminating with Newt Gingrich’s “Had Enough” quote. Democrats, he said, are willing to believe in government that can help, that can make things better, and that it is time for us to have hope again. Interestingly, he told us our problems are not as great as they seem–something that at first thought is not a very endearing thing to say. As people, we don’t like having our miseries and injustices diminished; it makes us feel petty. But Senator Obama was right–we have faced greater challenges in the past, and we can solve those obstacles facing us. We can triumph, if we unite against the things that distract us and divide us.

Iowa Progress:

I caught a glimpse of the back of Obama’s head in the middle of a giggling crowd. I knew it was no use to try to get a word with him at that point. Mark that as the first failed chance to nab Obama.

Obamarama spoke next and boy did he get an applause. He complimented Iowa and said, “I’m going to have to come again.” Is he running in ‘08? More hints that he is. He gave a strong speech and the crowd obviously loved it. He recalled an anecdote where he met Marjorie Lewis, a 105-year-old black woman while he was running for the Senate. He then proceeded to tell America’s story through her life. It was an excellent rhetorical device and the speech really tugged at your Democratic and progressive heartstrings. He said that whenever he is cynical about politics he thinks of Marjorie Lewis and what she’s seen. It was a long speech, but his eloquent delivery seemed to keep the crowd captivated. I overheard one grandmotherly lady behind me remark that “Edwards-Obama would be a great ticket.” Interesting…

Yes, very interesting. For all of the New York Times’ focus on a possible run by Barack Obama for the presidency, I don’t think a Barack Obama nomination is in the cards, and I don’t think Barack Obama actually intends to become president in 2008. This is not to say that I don’t think he’d be a good president. Although he is substantively too moderate for my taste in his policy preferences, and although his affinity for religion in politics gives me some pause, I cannot help but respect his ability to speak to more than one audience with the impression of real consideration. In a written article on religion, he begins with a notion about “not leaving religion at politics’ door.” But look where he goes with it:

It’s wrong to ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square. Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Martin Luther King Jr. — indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, they also used religious language to argue for their cause. To say men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality.

If progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize the overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice, the need to think in terms of “thou” and not just “I,” resonates with all Americans. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of America’s renewal.

But the conservative leaders of the religious right will need to acknowledge a few truths about religion as well.

For one, the separation of church and state in America has preserved not only our democracy but also the robustness of our religious practice. After all, during our founding, it was not the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of this separation; it was the persecuted religious minorities concerned that any state-sponsored religion might hinder their ability to practice their faith.

This separation is critical to our form of government because in the end, democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

This might be difficult for those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics involves compromise, the art of the possible. But religion does not allow for compromise. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policymaking on them would be dangerous.

In the months and years to come, I am hopeful we can bridge these gaps and overcome the prejudices each of us brings to this debate. I believe that Americans want this. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool to attack and divide.

I don’t have to wholly agree with someone in order to recognize their quality of leadership, and Barack Obama has that quality in abundance: he is able to garner the respect of those from a wide variety of political backgrounds, and after the divisive presidency of George W. Bush America could benefit from someone who really, actually can act as a uniter.

I would strongly support a bid by Barack Obama to become President in 2008. But I do not believe that is Obama’s intention. Obama is black, which means that a significant portion of the population will be inclined to see him as unqualified after a quick glance at his skin. And despite many years experience at multiple levels of policy — Harvard Law Review editor, lecturer in Constitutional Law, community organizer, state senator — people will say that he is too inexperienced to be president. Inexperienced like John Edwards, who had zero years of policy experience before entering the Senate, and yet was a “serious contender” for the presidency? In the public’s eye, yes. Edwards is a good looking white man, and Obama is a good looking and rather more experienced black man. Hence the suggestion by a well-meaning woman in the Iowa crowd that “Edwards-Obama would be a great ticket” and not the other way around.

I would like Barack Obama to run for president. I want him to run for president, competing with Al Gore and Russ Feingold to articulate a future democratic vision. But if I had to make a bet, it would be that Barack Obama takes the spot as Vice President in the 2008 ticket, waiting for more time to pass (and for America to grow up just a little bit more) before a the run for the presidency itself.

I hope I am wrong.