Cross-posted on Horse Head Soup:
As is likely well known to the readers of Daily Kos, Democratic strategists Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen have written an op-ed piece in the Washington Post advising President Obama not to seek re-election in 2012.
From the piece:
If the president goes down the reelection road, we are guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it. But by explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, Obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose.
Later they quote Obama's own statement that he'd "rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president," and go on to argue that the best way for him to combat the polarization of America is to effectively remove himself from it.
So should he?
There are pros and cons to it. On the one hand, it would certainly take the wind out of the Republicans' sails. Overnight the spotlight would shift from the GOP back to the president. It would free him up to make tough, unpopular decisions without the need for electoral calculus. And it might help to neuter anti-Obama zealots like the birthers.
I have to admit, the idea has some personal appeal to me, as well. In the past year, I have found myself more and more disenchanted with the president. I tried to deny it at first, or to write off his missteps as teething pains. But the truth is that I was deeply disappointed by his decision not to fight for a public option in the health care bill. I know this battle has been fought many times on these forums, and I do not mean to start another skirmish, but I consider the individual mandate provision of the HCR law to be simply unconscionable.
But the last straw was Don't Ask Don't Tell. I can still barely wrap my head around it. A federal judge ruled the law unconstitutional. All the Obama administration had to do was literally NOTHING AT ALL and DADT would have been history. Instead, what did they do? They frigging APPEALED it. I don't use this phrase often, but WTF?!?
I'm not sure what they were thinking. Was the appeal a pre-election pander to right-wing voters? If so, it was a foolish waste of time. Those people wouldn't vote Democratic if Obama issued an executive order mandating prayer in public schools. Was it aimed at shoring up his African-American base (a group that traditionally is not particularly supportive of gay rights)? I don't know. But either way it felt like a cowardly decision. And now the SCOTUS has upheld it, so DADT is the law of the land for the foreseeable future. Good job, Obama administration.
I don't know about anyone else, but I waited through eight years of Bushocracy for a Democrat. Sometimes I'm not sure that's what Obama really is. So, yeah, maybe one term wouldn't be such a bad idea.
On the other hand, if the president were to announce now that he would not seek a second term, the Republicans would be even more insufferable than they already are (and that's saying a lot). They would see it as a victory, and it would set the precedent that they can simply bully a president out of office if they don't like his politics. It could smack of defeatism, and might serve to further demoralize already morose Democrats. And finally, it would not entirely obviate the need for political calculations. Even if the president was not running in 2012, some Democrat would be. Obama would still have to consider how his decisions over the next two years might affect the eventual nominee's chances, whoever it might be (and does anyone seriously think it wouldn't be Hillary Clinton?).
So yeah, I'm torn. On balance, I probably lean toward not making any kind of announcement about 2012 this far out. But could anyone here have imagined two years ago that we'd be having this conversation now?