Maybe it's right time for Obama to run . . . December 8, 2006
BY RICH MILLER
I've known Barack Obama since he was first elected to the state Senate in 1996, and I've been mostly wrong about him from the start.
In the beginning, I thought Obama had too much "Harvard ambition" about him, but others pointed out to me that his loss to Rep. Bobby Rush in the 2000 Democratic primary seemed to humble him a bit.
Sometime after that loss, I ran into Obama in Jackson Park, a city golf course on the South Side. We chatted pleasantly and he said some brief words to my female golfing companion and we moved on.
Afterward, my friend, who is not easily impressed, had a look of pure joy on her face. She talked excitedly about Obama, but I dismissed him as someone who had screwed up his future by running against Bobby Rush. She said I would eat those words one day.
I took my father to hear Obama speak in January of 2004, at the beginning of his U.S. Senate campaign. My father was a lifelong, conservative Republican, but he had broken with George W. Bush over the Iraq war and was open to change.
My father sat transfixed during Obama's speech, soaking up every word. I had never seen him react that way to anyone or anything in all my life. I got quite a chuckle out of it.
Afterward, Obama approached our table. My dad grabbed his hand and with a look of awe gushed, "Never change. Never change." I remember feeling embarrassed for his exuberance.
My dad has been pushing for an Obama presidency since before Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate. I agree that Obama should probably strike while the iron is hot, but I have some troubles with his lack of experience and the recent revelations about that questionable land deal with noted political bad guy Tony Rezko.
The experience issue is less of a problem for me. Abraham Lincoln's sole governmental experience was eight years in the Illinois House and just two years in Congress, yet he was one of our greatest presidents. Besides, more "experience" wallowing through the disgusting cesspool that is Washington may only hurt Obama, not help him.
According to Tom Schwartz, the Illinois state historian, 19th century voters didn't view politics as a profession, so they didn't expect presidential candidates like Lincoln to have extensive political experience. The issue never came up in the 1860 campaign, Schwartz said.
After telling Schwartz that I was trying hard not to add to the hype by comparing Lincoln to Obama, Schwartz shared some surprising thoughts.
''What Lincoln brought to the presidency, which was very much needed at the time . . . [was] a very fine ear for listening to the public's concerns and then being able to articulate responses that created consensus that was able to move the country forward in positive ways,'' Schwartz said. Schwartz then said that he saw a direct comparison to Obama's calls for unity and the way Obama had sparked so much interest from people who normally don't care for politics.
Back in the 1800s, the Illinois Legislature was opening up the state to development and railroads, so legislators were aware of profit potentials before they became public. State Rep. Lincoln got in on some of those deals -- one of the rare strikes on his integrity before being elected president. Ironically, they were all busts.
I've been wrong about Obama for so long that, after talking to Schwartz, I'm tempted to just throw in the towel and join my dad's cheerleading squad. If Obama can prove that Rezko's way-too-convenient purchase of a yard next to his South Side mansion was an aberration, then I may be sorely tempted. Until then, I'm going to resist the hype as best I can.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/miller/164861,CST-EDT-MILL08.article
