Progressive Democrat Issue 102: A BRIEF WORD ABOUT 2008

Speculation is rife about the 2008 Presidential election...and on all the blogs, particularly Daily Kos, the internal fights over who to back have begun. Within weeks of the great victory of the moderate/progressive Democratic alliance, that alliance started fragmenting over who to support 2 years from now.

I won't cover this issue much. Not only is this newsletter not intended for internal dissention within the party so much as finding common ground and working to achieve common goals, but also because, quite simply, I have not chosen a horse to back in this race. But, since speculation is in the air, let me make a few comments.

Hillary Clinton gives us the possibility of the first woman President. We are WAY behind in this one. Not only has Germany, Israel and Britain all had women executives, but even nations not know for being progressive on women's rights, like Pakistan, Nicaragua, India and Sri Lanka, have beaten us to the punch. As America has argued over whether we "are ready" for a woman president, these nations have done it. It is WAY past time for us to accept a woman President. Hillary has clear plusses and minuses. I am not likely to support her in the primaries, but were she to get the nomination I would be more than willing to support her because I think she would make a perfectly good President, especially in comparison with any of the Republican contenders. I don't have to agree with someone 100% to think they would make a good President. I certainly don't agree with Hillary 100%, but I do think she would make a good President.

Barak Obama: Are we ready for a black President? I know I am. Obama inspires people and we need that. And he represents the REAL American Dream, not the all-white, homogeneous "dream" that Republicans push. As with Hillary, I don't agree with Obama 100%, but I don't have to.

John Edwards: I never quite got why people were so taken by Edwards, but two things make me revise my earlier, unimpressed view of him. First off, there is the very fact that he HAS inspired people. Again, we NEED inspiring candidates. With Obama and Edwards both running, I think that will get lots of people's attention. The other thing I like about Edwards is his focus on poverty. That is VERY important and of all the candidates, Edwards is the one who has the most focus on bread-and-butter, working class issues. That may be exactly what we need.

Wes Clark: Republican turned Democrat. I am always suspicious of Republicans who suddenly see the light and become Democrats...but I also welcome them. Locally a man named Eric Adams ran for State Senate. He was "accused" of being a recently converted Republican. Fine...he was still an excellent candidate I supported wholeheartedly: a former police captain, a civil rights advocate and a leader in the black community. Wes Clark doesn't inspire me...but he certainly represents moderate America and is a Democrat (now) who was also a general and leader in war. Again, he wouldn't be my choice in the primary, most likely, but he would make a good President.

Bill Richardson: I think it will be, sadly, harder to get our first Hispanic than our first black or woman President. But I also think that the dynamic of putting the whole Southwest into play with a Hispanic candidate has been completely unexplored. So far he just doesn't seem to be able to inspire enough. And is New Mexico a big enough power base to start with?

These are the ones I see most likely to both run and have a real shot at the nomination. I have supported both Al Gore and John Kerry in the past and would support them again for the same reasons I supported them in the past. Vilsack and Kucinich, all other considerations aside, have their names going against them. I believe we would have a woman or black President before we have someone with a name like Vilsack, Kucinich or, shall we say, Dukakis for President. Does Obama have the same disadvantage? Quite possibly, but his personality just might overcome that. I don't see Vilsack or Kucunich overcoming their name handicap. Biden has become a perpetual also ran. He also has so far lacked the ability to inspire adequately, though if he really stands up against the McCain/Bush suicidal troop surge he may well spark his own surge in people's estimation.

And there is the "governor" factor. Governors win general elections for President, no one else really does. Except, maybe, VPs (elected Bush and Gore). So, does that mean Richardson has more of a shot than I am predicting?

I know I am forgetting some, but I think the above will be the main early contenders. There is always the chance of a dark horse. Democrats do well with dark horses. No one believed Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton would be our nominees, let alone President. Again, that gives me a sense that Governor Richardson may have far more of a chance than any of us are allowing...I doubt it, buy I doubted Bill Clinton practically until the end!

And that is about all the speculation I plan on. I am more interested in building the Party's infrastructure, strengthening our hold on Congress in 2008, winning Secretaries of State and Attorneys General positions, and winning state legislatures than I am in the 2008 Presidential primary.