http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obamas_rise_may_not_have_surpr.htmlLast week's discussion about Secret Service protection which culminated in the 'Is-he-crazy?' realization that Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain didn't have it (He now says he'll get it.) was actually part of a House budget hearing on the financial needs of the protective agency which is grappling with its longest presidential campaign. For which it has Barack Obama to thank.
The Secret Service's visible involvement in the 2008 campaign began in May 2007 when it began guarding the Illinois Democrat. It was the Service's earliest involvement in a White House contest.
The early protection for Obama is a reminder of how quickly he evolved (exploded?) from a much talked about phenom to established contender. Yes, a good deal of the reason for the quick turn to the Secret Service involved concern that Obama might face particular peril because he is black. But Obama also darted to center stage in a way that few expected.
One careful observer who might not have been surprised at Obama's ascent is Bill Clinton, himself a brilliant practioner of the political game.
Clinton mentioned Obama only in passing in David Remnick's long and insightful September 2006 profile of the ex-president, but what he said seemed to suggest he'd already looked the Illinoisan over carefully.
Clinton, according to Remnick, 'thinks (Obama) has the intelligence and the toughness necessary to be President...'
But, said Clinton, Obama has to be careful about running too soon—“like John Edwards.”
The implied counsel to wait doesn't seem like it comes from personal experience.
Clinton had been governor of Arkansas for 12 years and thus somewhat more seasoned than Obama, when he first ran, in 1992. But he was only 46, a year younger than Obama will be on election day.
Of course, you couldn't blame Clinton for thinking that maybe Obama should bide his time since Hillary Clinton was lining up her own presidential bid at the time of the interview.
Later in the profile, Bill Clinton seems to want to neutralize one of the bigger advantages Obama would have against Hillary Clinton, at least among Democratic voters, his opposition to and vote against the Iraq war.
Clinton, Remnick writes, was infuriated at "the way the Democrats were beating each other up about the past (in other words: Hillary’s 2002 Senate vote authorizing the President to use force in Iraq) rather than forming a coherent alternative to the White House’s stay-the-course rhetoric. “This deal with Iraq makes me want to throw up,” he said. “I’m sick and tired of being told that if you voted for authorization you voted for the war. It was a mistake, and I would have made it, too. And Congress made it once before, at the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.” The blame was with the White House: “The Administration did not shoot straight on the nuclear issue or on Saddam’s supposed ties to Al Qaeda prior to 9/11.”