Law School Discussion

On Nov. 4. 2008, Obama will be 47 years old. He will have served in the Senate for less than four years and in elected office for little more than a decade. Even assuming a Democrat wins the White House and is reelected in 2012, Obama will only be in his mid-50s when the 2016 election comes around.

Why rehash all of these facts? Because the most compelling reason for Obama not to run for president is that by jumping too soon he could ruin one of the most promising Democratic political careers in recent memory. If Obama decides to run in 2008 and doesn't wind up as either the presidential or vice presidential nominee, he would run the risk of being perceived as yesterday's news by voters should he try to run for national office again down the line.

There are several recent examples of this trend. The most fitting is Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, who was seen as a Democratic rising stars when he began to raise money and organize for the 1988 presidential race. But charges of plagiarism forced Biden from the race, and although he remained in the Senate and is planning to run for president again in 2008, he has not yet been able to reclaim his former star status.

Barack Obama repurposed speeches similar to those given by Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick.



The campaign of Democratic U.S. Senate candidate and former Virginia Governor Mark Warner have accused John McCain as well of plagiarism after McCain promised not to raise taxes. "This is the exact same line I used in my 2001 gubernatorial campaign!" complained Warner.

Chris,

Two quick points because I am tired and have had some wine tonight.

First, Just because some of us don't see the problem with LS does not mean we are not engaged with the world. I follow the news quite closely,, have friends in elected office, and am involved with many groups (from abortion rights to environmentalism). I am actually looking to possibly run for office in either 08 or 10.

Enough with environmentalism and the like! Did you ear the lastest protest from environmentalists? Furious, as they always appear to be, they claimed American Airlines committed an "environmental crime" after flying a nearly empty Boeing 777 between Chicago O'Hare and London Heathrow, the Daily Mail of London reports. AA flew the 777 with just 5 passengers, something that came about after a long delay meant most of that flight's other customers had gone and secured options on other flights. But environmental activists charged that a 5-person flight means the carrier ended up burning 4,400 gallons of fuel per flier. They suggest AA should have canceled the trip instead of flying a flight they view as wasteful. Richard Dyer, a member of the group Friends of the Earth, tells the Daily Mail: "Through no fault of their own, each passenger's carbon footprint for this flight is about 45 times what it would have been if the plane had been full." But the environmentalists' complaints appear to put AA in a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" situation. AA says it decided to fly the flight because it had a full plane-load of passengers waiting at Heathrow to board the return flight the 777 was scheduled to operate. Without operating the "empty" flight, that 777 would have been out of position and a second flight would have been canceled. The average load factor across the Atlantic is 88%, that is every plane flying between the U.S. and the U.K. is 88% full. To transfer 250 passengers onto other planes would take days to clear the flight, because there will be five passengers on one plane here and 10 on another there. The bulk of the passengers will spend two or three days stuck in a hotel being paid for by the airline.