Progressive Democrat Issue 106: 2008 PRESIDENTIAL RACE

Once again, I want to emphasize that I don't want to spend too much time on discussing the Presidential hopefuls. But sometimes you just can't escape thinking about it. I am going to quote Markos of Daily Kos, giving his analysis. Why? Because I like the fact that he is saying good and bad about each of the main candidates and sums up by saying he's support any of them. I may not agree with every detail of what he wrote, but I like the gist. So, here is Markos on 2008: (with my notes added)

Bill Richardson

I'm eager for a serious Latino candidate. It's time my people rose to the top of the political heap. He's bilingual. I dig his resume. Rather than talk about Darfur, he got his ass over there and brokered a cease fire, and that's on top of high-profile diplomatic missions all over the world, including places like North Korea. His resume is the strongest of any of the candidates. He had a strong reign at the top of the Democratic Governor's Association last year.

Then again, Democrats lost New Mexico in 2004 under his watch (after winning it in 2000), and they lost the state's marquee House race in 2006. A lack of coattails is a serious demerit in my book. Richardson could stand to lose some weight. Appearances matter. And his private life is the subject of -- how should I delicately put it? -- Clintonian rumors.

[I should note that Democratic Presidents generally have sex surrounding them: from FDR's mistress through the exploits of Kennedy and LBJ to Carter's Playboy interview and Clinton's affairs, the Democrats who win seem to be the ones that fool around. And more recently it has been the boyish attractiveness that seems to win. So we shouldn't discount the sexiness (literally!) of our candidates if we want to win.

I feel Richardson would be a good addition as either President or VP because he would bring the West more into play and, now that the Republicans have completely ruined their chances with the Latino vote thanks to their xenophobia, it really is time for Democrats to give Latinos a reason to vote Dem. Richardson could attract a lot of voters who might sit it out otherwise. Also, it almost seems a requirement that a candidate is a Governor to win...]

John Edwards

The sharpest voice in the race, he also has the best developed philosophical narrative for his run (the Two Americas). He is also shaping up as the most aggressive voice this cycle, not just targeting Republicans (the "McCain Doctrine"), but also in targeting meek Democrats who act as if there's little they could do to put the brakes on Bush's escalation. He proved in 2004 that he could run a smart race. He's already won a statewide campaign in a tough red state. He's good looking.

Then again, that "experience" thing hovers over him. I wonder if he'd been better served running for governor (NC has an open seat in 2008), setting himself up for that presidential bid with a bit more heft in his resume. I also like my politicians a little on the raw side (e.g. Dean, Tester, and Webb), and Edwards is very polished. Edwards also fails the "coattails" test. His Senate seat was taken by a Republican. And the Kerry/Edwards ticket failed to carry North Carolina (or any southern state, for that matter).

[Right now I am hearing the most enthusiasm for Edwards. He's got the boyish sexiness that wins for Democrats (Republicans can be old prunes, Democrats can't). And his message resonates well with a wide range of Americans who are feeling very uncertain in the Bush economy. If Edwards can tap into the blue collar vote, the voters that I wrote about Hank Sheinkopf saying we most need in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Michigan, then he may be our best hope. Add Richardson to that ticket, and you may be appealing exactly to those voters Sheinkopf thinks we most need (he narrows it down to 500,000 white, blue collar, male Catholics)...though ironically he backs Hillary Clinton who I don't think reaches those voters. A ticket that can reach those 500,000 Sheinkof-targeted voters AND that can reach Latino voters is worth considering. Hence some pairing of Edwards/Richardson may be strategically good. But both have flaws and I don't want to say I have chosen to support either yet!]

Barack Obama

The best orator in the field, he can craft gorgeous speeches. There is palpable excitement that Obama can't just make history, but he can radically change it. And given how desperate Republicans have been to break the color barrier (witness efforts to draft Rice and Powell), it'd be nice for us to get there first. Obama has proven he can win crowded Democratic primaries. The media loves him (in the same way they love McCain -- bordering on the irrational). He's got powerful friends like Oprah (and yes, that matters).

Then again, he's also thin on the "experience" thing (though he bests Edwards with an extra six-year term as a state senator). He failed the "coattail" test in his home state, with Democrats losing both serious challenges to Republican districts -- the Dan Seals and Tammy Duckworth races. Duckworth, in particular, was an Obama project. Like I said, he's the best orator in the field, but his stuff is strangely unsatisfying. It sounds great when you hear it, but an hour later, you wonder what the heck it was he was talking about. He's never had to run a competitive general election. And no, Alan Keyes doesn't count.

But my biggest knock on Obama is that he's yet to take a high-profile leadership role on a controversial issue. It's a political advantage to be a cipher, and it should serve him well in a potential general election matchup, but it won't get me excited and eager to jump on his bandwagon during the primary.

[Obama is something of a superstar of the moment. He has gotten lots of press and lots of attention and that's all good. He is the most serious black candidate to date, since Colin Powell clearly didn't have the stomach for it. I like the fact that we have an election year where an Obama vs. Rice or Clinton vs. Rice line up is just possible. Should either of those shape up, what a historic year it would be.

That aside, I have yet to warm to Obama. Actually I have the same problem with both Edwards and Obama: there is something too smooth about them. But that's me, not the average voter. As far as actual speaking style, Obama appeals to me more than Edwards. But both leave me with a sense of not being quite satisfied with what they offer. Then again, so did Bill Clinton.]

Hillary Clinton

By all measures she's been a great Senator. She's got a great "story", and has taken more shit from the Right than any other Democrat in existence (besting husband Bill by a longshot). She's a tough one. And really, while Republicans may talk about swiftboating her, is there anything left for them to hurl at her? Unlike what some naysayers say, she can absolutely win the general election. And it's well past time for this country to join the 20th century, much less the current one, and start feeling more comfortable electing women to the top offices.

Then again, Hillary would be a drag on races lower on the ballot. In fact, her potential nomination is already creating all sorts of headaches for Senate and House recruitment efforts in tough states and districts. This is a dynamic not at play with any of the other serious candidates. She is also the DLC candidate, literally. From Harold Ford's memo accepting the DLC chairmanship: "I assume there will be an effort to help Senator Clinton's campaign, and I would support such an effort."

At least Vilsack can say that he was sacked by the DLC. Hillary is the DLC's last chance at some measure of relevancy. She loses, they've got nothing left.

And Clinton didn't exhibit the sort of coattails that should've netted us several more House seats in New York. In fact, I'm bitter that more of her millions (and those of Spitzer, for that matter) didn't make their way into more down-ballot races at both the state and federal levels.

-----

Bottom line? I like these guys just fine. They would all win a general election in 2008. But there's little to motivate me to support one above any of the others. And thats why I'm neutral on the primary race.

[Well, Hillary is my Senator. And I have not really been happy with her. Don't get me wrong. I voted for her and didn't regret that she won over the Republican candidate. One reader put it that she seems almost exactly 2 years behind John Kerry, developing a war stand now that Kerry developed 2 years ago, for example. And as that reader said, maybe that means she will be just right in 2 years. Hillary is the person everyone loves to hate, both on the left and the right. That's a problem. I think she has too much baggage. The biggest problem is she is the most insider of insiders, except she isn't male, putting her at a disadvantage of the "old boy's network" that is politics. Americans like the outsider image and Hillary just could never pull that off. Of course how Bush pulled it off is beyond me, but Hillary is everyone's definition of an insider.

Now, Hank Sheinkopf pointed out something that many ignore. Hillary did just fine in upstate New York. The demographics of upstate NY isn't all that different than Pennsylvania and Ohio. Sheinkof thinks she could appeal to those 500,000 blue collar white male Catholics he thinks we need to win. I don't think he's right. I think they dispise her. But he is right that she did win upstate and so has practice with that demographic.]

Click here to go back to THOUGHTS section and Table of Contents for this issue.