Charles Krauthammer must read Papa-Lu.
In one of the posts that I linked to here, Daniel Larison says:
What Larison is forgetting is that Edwards - even more than Obama is all rhetoric and no substance. His senate term was up in 2000 and there was much doubt as to whether Edwards could have held his senate seat had he tried (he was the fourth straight challenger to defeat an incumbent for that seat). In other words, Edwards was quite possibly at his political zenith when he tossed his hat in. Obama, on the other hand, is a rising-star Democrat from a state that's trending more and more leftward. Even if he loses the 2008 primaries and fails to gain the vice-presidential spot on the Dem ticket, he will still be a sitting U.S. Senator who will likely retain his seat in 2010, meaning he well still be a senator in 2012 when McCain is facing re-election or in 2016 when Hillary finishes her 8 years in office.
Obama may then likely perceive that he has nothing to lose and the vice-presidency to gain by running in 2008.
The problem with this analysis is that it presumes that Obama is cynical enough to vie for a spot on the Dem ticket with Hilary Clinton, or that he's dumb enought to run thinking he'll be president. Much as I dislike Obama, he's neither of those things. He's a very sincere man I happen to disagree with on many, many things. I think he's smart enough to know that with such a scanty record, he'll have to run on his ideas, which are either generically meaningless (we need to "come together" and "work for the common good") or are too far in left field.
